How would you divide up England by region?

Smokey Joe said:

Or why not

Just get rid of Cheshire and have Lancashire instead of a Northwest. It has the same population as Yorkshire.
People should be (geographically) loyal to their town, county, and nation, not compass directions

What would be the harm is just using the 39 ("traditional") counties for England, all with equal powers then?
The extremes of past re-organisations of councils have often failed, Humberside, Leicestershire-with-Rutland, Hereford and Worcester, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Tyne and Wear, all crossed county lines and all had to be split up again. Mass grouping on regional levels may work for crayon drawers in government, but in reality regional government doesn't work in England, and it can't until we get a proper national government first. Italy was unified, England is currently run by the UK is an un-equal system that favours the other nations, the first bit of devolution needed for England is for the whole nation to have it's own parliament like Scotland with the same status in funding arrangements. No one in Scotland is saying it should have it's 9 official regions with devolved governments afterall.

Click to expand...

The traditional counties only work where they currently exist. You would not have Middlesex and Surrey would not be controlling land up to the south bank.

Further north Greater Manchester, Tyne & Wear and Merseyside all still exist, yet in the case of the north east it might be better to have a Tyne-Tees region. Greater Manchester is operating as a strong unit in itself and Burnham has done a fantastic job.

Purple Orange said:

I grew up in Newcastle and I have to say ‘the north’, ‘the north east’ and Tyne & Wear were strong concepts that have stayed with me, whereby I feel a lot in common with West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside all along that M62 belt. Having lived many years in both Tyne & Wear and in Greater Manchester, I can confidently say there is an awful lot the two areas share in common.

The question of ‘splitting up England’ isn’t the right question in the first instance, as England isn’t going to be split up. However if it is to do with devolving powers away from Westminster, then it could be done on a much more granular level than North West, East Midlands, South West etc etc. We already have started several different models for devolving powers in the UK, with the Scottish parliament, the Welsh Assembly and Northern Irish Assembly, but within England we have started a haphazard approach.

A case in point is that Greater London has an assembly, but Greater Manchester & the West Midlands do not. Greater Manchester has control over its NHS healthcare budget, whereas Greater London and the West Midlands do not. I would like us to take a leaf out of Italy’s book, which has 20 regional assemblies for a country with a similar population to England. All have varying sizes of population, with some as small as 300,000.

In short, we shouldn’t look for a uniform sized assembley, but set in place regional assemblies that do have consistent legislative powers and specifically powers from Westminster.

Click to expand...

I think the main problem is that four different regulatory systems already causes issues - more would be unworkable. I'd even go as far as to say four devolved provincial governments in England would be more than enough if we're aiming for Scottish-style powers - any further would over-complicate things.

Smokey Joe said:

Personally I divide England into the 39 shires, not council or lieutenancy areas but the traditional areas.
They are the best understood definition, with a long history, culture and well known names.
When I group the counties into larger regions, I do as follows:

I'd group Lancashire, Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland, Durham, and Yorkshire together as The North (this is similar to the historic Northumbria).
Further division would simply just be Northwest and Northeast.

I'd group Cheshire, Staffordshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Rutland, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, and Hertfordshire as The Midlands (this is similar to the historic Mercia).
Further division could include South Midlands for the Herts, Beds, Bucks, Gloucs and Oxon area, as well as East and West similar to current government regions.

I'd group Devon, Somerset, Cornwall, Dorset, Wiltshire, Hampshire, and Berkshire as The West (this is similar to historic Wessex).
Further division would be The South for Hants, Berks and Wilts, with the West Country for the rest.

I'd group Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire as The East (similar to historic East Anglia).

I'd group Sussex, Essex, Kent, Surrey, and Middlesex as The South East.

I too love maps and like to see these types of discussions, I've long come to the conclusion there is no such thing as a North-South divide except in the mind. England is a rather uniform nation, you get more changes going from town to suburbs than from Bolton to Basildon.
Historically the Marches were most of Wales except Gwynedd, Wikipedia has long being spreading that it covers all the border counties incorrectly.

Click to expand...

Very sensible plan !
I have lived in Cumbria for 30 years although I hail from the North East - It was our friends in Europe who decreed ( Having used a ruler in Brussels to draw down and divide the land into 4 sections on a map !) that Cumbria become part of the 'North West Region' partnered with the conurbations of Manchester and Liverpool with which we share little in common although historically the links to Durham and Northumberland/ West/North Riding of Yorkshire are actually far stronger and the length of the contiguous borders far more significant - although remember that 'Cumbria' was a 1974 'manufactured' county ( just like Tyne & Wear and Cleveland and Humberside !) and in the southern area of the present governance ( Barrow in Furness, Grange over Sands, Ulverston etc ) they were very much part of Lancashire and will always be regarded so by the locals perspective !

LatymerKing said:

I think the main problem is that four different regulatory systems already causes issues - more would be unworkable. I'd even go as far as to say four devolved provincial governments in England would be more than enough if we're aiming for Scottish-style powers - any further would over-complicate things.

Click to expand...

Yes it should't be four different systems, but it needs to be one tier of government at a regional level with specific devolved powers from Westminster.

johnnychips said:

This was called the ‘salt corridor’. Apparently, hundreds of years ago, you had to pay tax if you crossed a county boundary with salt. I have no idea how it was established, but the fact that Longdendale was in Cheshire meant you could move salt from the Cheshire salt mines to Yorkshire and just pay tax once.

Indeed, if you drive on the A628 Woodhead road from Sheffield to Manchester, soon after the summit, you will cross from the Metropolitan Borough of Barnsley into Derbyshire at Saltersbrook Bridge. Pre 1974 that would have been from Yorkshire into Cheshire.

DIFFERENT POINT:

I am always struck that places in the north of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire feel much more northern than midlands-ish. Obvious examples are Glossop, Chesterfield and Scunthorpe; but I would also add places like Buxton, Worksop and Grimsby.

Click to expand...

I’ve been searching to see if I can find why that corner of Cheshire reached all the way to Yorkshire and I drew a blank. Your post describes the reason brilliantly - cheers for this reply.

Looking at the map with the old boundary hypothetically, Lancashire could have continued further south-east and border with north-west Derbyshire (with Derbyshire also pushing north to the Yorkshire boundary). Potentially this could’ve resulted in crossing both Lancashire and Derbyshire between the Cheshire salt mines and Yorkshire. Interesting stuff. All makes sense now. Thanks for the salt corridor background.

On the point about the northern parts of Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and Lincolnshire, I have always thought the same - the northern extremities of those counties gravitate towards the north (and certainly have a northern ‘feel’). Derbyshire in particular has always fascinated me on this subject, mostly because of its length and geography. One thing that always intrigues me is that the Dark Peak area (and high moorlands of Kinder Scout and surrounding hills) are so remote; yet they’re in the same county as the outer parts of the Nottingham conurbation.

On a separate note, the original post proposed moving the Dark Peak area into the North West region, which is a good template for addressing the northern parts of Derbys, Notts, and Lincs. I still find it curious that Glossop is in the same region as Northampton, Stamford, and Spalding.

Apparently North Yorkshire, East Yorkshire and Cumbria are to become combined authorities with mayors under a ‘County Deal’. The metropolitan cities has ‘City Deaks’. That would just leave Lancashire and Cheshire as being left to yet to establish a moyorality and combined authority. So perhaps this is the way devolution will go... Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland with their elected parliaments and England is split in to many different segments.

I’d argue that further adaptations of the existing authorities needs to happen. The North East combined authorities are a mess - a border along the Tyne is a joke - it needs to be split between rural (Northumberland and County Durham) and urban (Tyne & Wear). The next step for Greater Manchester is to gain an assembly of it’s own.

If we were to go with a federal system which essentially abolished England (the Prussia treatment), each state would have to have identical powers and its own courts (so no more single system for England & Wales). If we were to go down that path, I'd go with as follows (capital in parentheses)...

Scotland (Edinburgh) - as is

Northumbria (York) - North East, North West and Yorkshire & The Humber regions

Wales (Cardiff) - as is

Mercia (Coventry) - East Midlands & West Midlands regions

East Anglia (Norwich) - Norfolk, Suffolk & Cambridgeshire (including Huntingdonshire & Peterborough)

Lower England (London) - Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Essex, Greater London, Kent, Sussex, & Surrey

Wessex (Swindon) - Hampshire, Wight, Berkshire & South West region bar Cornwall

Cornwall (Truro) - Cornwall & Isles of Scilly

I'm not sure Northern Ireland could be a "state" as such. It might just carry on as it is now as a devolved territory.

Alternatively and perhaps more realistically though, we should consider keeping England and devolving power to counties. These may involve the retention of metropolitan counties but it may well be that erstwhile counties such as Huntingdonshire, Cumberland & Westmorland could also return.

Each county would have significant powers at least on par with what the Welsh Assembly had prior to gaining limited primary legislation powers. They'd be the basic units for delivery of national policy and things like health, education & policing. Regions would remain merely for statistical analysis. Wales would be separated from England in legal jurisdiction, allowing it to have the same powers as Scotland in regards to primarily legislation.

Underneath counties would be municipalities. These could be styled parishes, village, communities, towns, boroughs and cities (the latter two need to be granted to towns by the monarch). These would vary massively in size from a large city to a small village. Larger municipalities may choose to run most local services whilst small parishes would mostly rely on the county for the big things. A place could also choose to be unincorporated and have only county government.

This wouldn't solve the West Lothian question, as the counties would still be under a single court system and unable to pass primary legislation unlike Scotland & Wales but it would diminish the problem significantly and bring power a hell of a lot closer to the people than currently.

A federal system does not mean England is abolished though.

As a legal entity, it would be.

Gareth said:

If we were to go with a federal system which essentially abolished England (the Prussia treatment), each state would have to have identical powers and its own courts (so no more single system for England & Wales). If we were to go down that path, I'd go with as follows (capital in parentheses)...

Northumbria (York) - North East, North West and Yorkshire & The Humber regions


Alternatively and perhaps more realistically though, we should consider keeping England and devolving power to counties. These may involve the retention of metropolitan counties but it may well be that erstwhile counties such as Huntingdonshire, Cumberland & Westmorland could also return.

Each county would have significant powers at least on par with what the Welsh Assembly had prior to gaining limited primary legislation powers. They'd be the basic units for delivery of national policy and things like health, education & policing. Regions would remain merely for statistical analysis. Wales would be separated from England in legal jurisdiction, allowing it to have the same powers as Scotland in regards to primarily legislation.

Underneath counties would be municipalities. These could be styled parishes, village, communities, towns, boroughs and cities (the latter two need to be granted to towns by the monarch). These would vary massively in size from a large city to a small village. Larger municipalities may choose to run most local services whilst small parishes would mostly rely on the county for the big things. A place could also choose to be unincorporated and have only county government.

This wouldn't solve the West Lothian question, as the counties would still be under a single court system and unable to pass primary legislation unlike Scotland & Wales but it would diminish the problem significantly and bring power a hell of a lot closer to the people than currently.

Click to expand...

I think that you would find that Cumbria and Lancashire would be very upset at being put under an assembly at York!

And as for the question about where Crewe is (and Cheshire generally) it is already bad enough: The BBC don't even recognise the county any more, perhaps kow-towing to the gov'ts long-term wish to abolish it altogether and split it between Greater Manchester and Greater Liverpool.
The only way to make sense of the boundary between Cheshires East and West (forced through by the westminster lot against overwhelming local opposition) is if you look at the commuter railways and see which town has services to which big city! Crewe might be N Midlands (as it has lots of links with Stoke) but being most definitely in Cheshire it also looks to Chester and the other towns in the county, plus the easily-reached cities nearby. So Midlands? North west? A bit of both, really.

What is most upsetting about splitting the county is that the result has been the turning a well-respected County administration into 2: one a tiddler and another which is just a joke, and notorious for ineptitude and much worse.
When you start proposing reorganisation of local government you quickly touch raw nerves...
A

England needs independence to stop this federalising ideas nonsense. The UK is not the best situation for any of the 3 nations (and whatever Northern Ireland is).

Anyway, just a quick question, should urban and rural areas by administered by separate councils?
Is it really beneficial to have a Hull Council and an East Yorkshire Council, rather than combined?
(also applies to Notts and Nottinghamshire, Derby and Derbyshire, Sunderland and Durham etc).
In many cases today people rely on services in the other council area, it must cause financial burden and paperwork somewhere.

You have counties and then municipalities. Counties do wide area stuff and municipalities more immediate stuff. A large city like Hull would run most things itself but still be part of its county. Smaller places would rely more on the county. But there would still be things the county would retain regardless such as police, health, transport and to some extent education.

Gareth said:

As a legal entity, it would be.

Click to expand...

It would not. We’re talking about a tier of government that exists in Scotland, Wales & NI but not in England. Therefore it’s a question of how that tier is arranged within England under the umbrella of the United Kingdom.

Ffs, yes it would. I was talking about federalism and each state being constitutionally equivalent.

England remained as a legal entity through both acts of union; albeit with Wales which was essentially integrated into England by that point. A federal UK with England broken up into constituent states would require separate legal systems for each state (and Wales). England would no more legally exist than Prussia does, or Castille.

If all you want is for the regions within England to be glorified county councils, as in the John Prescott plan, then sure, there'd be no constitutional consequences but that wouldn't make the UK a federation. And the Prescott plan was an awful one which offered no meaningful devolved powers from the centre but several ways to interfere with local government. The only reason one could like the idea is, say, if their city was to be considered the capital and benefit from skewed priorities that favour it over any nearby cities. But I doubt you of all people would cynically support such a thing.

Gareth said:

Ffs, yes it would. I was talking about federalism and each state being constitutionally equivalent.

England remained as a legal entity through both acts of union; albeit with Wales which was essentially integrated into England by that point. A federal UK with England broken up into constituent states would require separate legal systems for each state (and Wales). England would no more legally exist than Prussia does, or Castille.

If all you want is for the regions within England to be glorified county councils, as in the John Prescott plan, then sure, there'd be no constitutional consequences but that wouldn't make the UK a federation. And the Prescott plan was an awful one which offered no meaningful devolved powers from the centre but several ways to interfere with local government. The only reason one could like the idea is, say, if their city was to be considered the capital and benefit from skewed priorities that favour it over any nearby cities. But I doubt you of all people would cynically support such a thing.

Click to expand...

Jeez this is tiring. If you are an expert on constitutional law I will bow to your expertise. However federalism in germany doesnt mean germany doesnt exist as an entity. England can still exist as an entity with federal regions sat within it. It changes England for sure, but it does not mean abolishing england as a legal entity.

How's it tiring? You've responded to three posts in the space of about a day. Don't be daft.

Germany exists because Germany is the federation itself. Prussia was a constituent part but was broken up after WWII and so now doesn't exist legally. England exists as a legal entity, even if it doesn't have a parliament separate from the UK as a whole. It was the same for Scotland pre-devolution.

I'm not an expert on constitutional law, although I have an interest in it and probably know more about it than the average layman. Nonetheless, this isn't high level stuff. The only way England can exist in a federation with the rest of the UK is if it's a single unit. Otherwise, it needs breaking up and each unit to have its own legal system and courts, as Scotland does. You can't have England separated into several states and just one legal jurisdiction. You can do that in a devolved set up but not a federation. But devolution in that style will always mean that English regions can't have the same powers of self government that Scotland has, although as Wales shows, you can still do a lot more than local government in England is currently allowed to do.

Gareth said:

I'm not an expert on constitutional law, although I have an interest in it and probably know more about it than the average layman. Nonetheless, this isn't high level stuff. The only way England can exist in a federation with the rest of the UK is if it's a single unit. Otherwise, it needs breaking up and each unit to have its own legal system and courts, as Scotland does. You can't have England separated into several states and just one legal jurisdiction. You can do that in a devolved set up but not a federation. But devolution in that style will always mean that English regions can't have the same powers of self government that Scotland has, although as Wales shows, you can still do a lot more than local government in England is currently allowed to do.

Click to expand...

There is no reason that a separate set of laws necessarily requires a separate legal system to enforce them.
For example Wales does not have its own Court system separate from the English system - we have an English and Welsh high court system under the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.

So it follows that levels of devolution granted to Wales are certainly possible within the existing judicial framework.

Given that Scotland and Wales already have pretty much all the powers that might be granted within a typical federation, I don't see any issue here.

Federal Subjects have already surrendered sovereignty to the central power - therefore they do not necessarily require a separate judicial system.

Scotland has quite significant powers with regards to primary legislation that Wales doesn't. In a devolved system, that can work (if not necessarily fair). In a federal system, that would mean the federal government having more control over certain states. Asymmetrical federations do exist, such as Malaysia but they're not without their problems and if the aim of federalising the UK isn't to solve the West Lothian Question, then I don't see the need for such a constitutional overhaul. We can have asymmetric devolution in the current unitary system, as we already do. And if that's the case, I don't see the need for large regions when county government could do most of the things that would potentially be on offer.

Gareth said:

How's it tiring? You've responded to three posts in the space of about a day. Don't be daft.

Click to expand...

Because I have little patience explaining the same point. As @HSTEd pointed out about English law in Wales, in an English federal system we could still have English law throughout the land. It points towards the continued existence of England as as legal entity, which you insisted would cease to be.

English law in Wales can only exist in a unitary system unless we have a federation with only three states - England & Wales/Scotland/NI. That's my point. If you broke England up into different states in a FEDERAL system, then England would cease to exist in exactly the same way Prussia has. It would be a UK federal system NOT an English one.

If the stupid UK is to go down the Federal system, England should not be broken up. England is just as capable as holding legal, and administrative roles as Scotland.
Northern Ireland is only a third of the size of Scotland, that doesn't need breaking up.
The UK will always be unequal, the more devolution happens, the more apparent it will become.

I for one would rather see Scotland leave as a proud and independent state and, in the European Union, find its place in the modern world (alongside Ireland) in a group of nations associated in a common endeavour. But if for some reason they end up wanting to stay in queenie's feudal union, then real devolution surely has to follow for England just as much as for Scotland, Wales, and the Six Counties? England is too big and too populous for everything to be controlled by an almighty Westminster. There's no need to break it up, but it does need very much stronger regional and local government, despigned for the job and not as a bolt-on to a life-expired current system. France has turned itself in recent years from a hideously centralised state to one with much more local decision-making, and so have Italy and Spain. It can be done. We imposed a strong regional system on West Germany after WW2 when we broke up Prussia and the present Länder came about. And we reformed the German trades unions. Why can't we do this for ourselves?

Senex said:

I for one would rather see Scotland leave as a proud and independent state and, in the European Union, find its place in the modern world (alongside Ireland) in a group of nations associated in a common endeavour.

Click to expand...

Ugh, pass the sick bucket.

As for Germany, we imposed (or rather reimposed) a federal system on it and broke Prussia up in the process. There's a world of difference between a federation like Germany and regional government of the type found in France. This was what I was trying to explain, perhaps poorly, to Purple Orange.

England would face the same fate in a federal UK. As someone who clearly doesn't like England much, as is pretty much mainstream in British polite society, this shouldn't be an issue for you personally. Although I don't share the British middle class loathing for England, I'd be ambivalent about it also - taking the old-fashioned view that Britain is our country and not a "yoonion" but whether the population as a whole would go for it, I honestly don't know. Opinion polls tend to show support for either an English Parliament or no radical change. Certainly, regions are unpopular. That's why I think empowering local government, giving counties much of what the Welsh Assembly initially had would be a more realistic solution, at least as a first phase. It wouldn't solve everything but it would go some way whilst avoiding the need for constitutional overhaul.

Given three more regions have been given combined authorities as ‘County Deals’ (as opposed to ‘City Deals’ that we have seen before), the notion of devolution going down to a number of federal regions is not going to happen.

Instead it looks like we are having metropolitan city regions (Greater London, Greater Manchester, West Midlands etc) and rural Counties (Cumbria, North Yorkshire & East Yorkshire), as the level where devolution will sit. On the face of it, this looks more like the Italian model, but with metropolitan cities called out individually.

They all need to establish assemblies.

The county deals are closer to what I'm thinking. However, we need a uniform system of powers, not this "give certain areas certain things" approach. Also, the bottom layer needs sorting. The districts need doing away with and all urban areas to have town and city councils to sit alongside parishes in the rural areas.

And, yes, the metropolitan counties need elected assemblies.

Gareth said:

The county deals are closer to what I'm thinking. However, we need a uniform system of powers, not this "give certain areas certain things" approach. Also, the bottom layer needs sorting. The districts need doing away with and all urban areas to have town and city councils to sit alongside parishes in the rural areas.

And, yes, the metropolitan counties need elected assemblies.

Click to expand...

I’m not sure they are actually ‘metropolitan counties’ anymore. They need, in some cases, to be better defined. Some metropolitan counties are now city regions, some city regions are half aligned to the former metropolitan county and half with rural counties, some city regions are mostly the old metropolitan county with the addition of one or two boroughs. Some city regions are cohesive cities, while others just look like boroughs clumped together.

I’d argue that all areas that have a combined authority and a city or county mayor should have an assembly, regardless of whether they are rural or urban.

Inspired by the TfL travel zones I hereby propose a zonal system for the new English regions. This is centred on Fenny Drayton which the Ordnance Survey has defined as the geographical centre of England (specifically Lindsey Hall Farm).
Like TfL, I propose 9 zones. Zones 1, 2 and 3 are pretty straightforward. On the map, you will see that once you get to The Wash, this becomes really interesting where the zones become bisected by geography whereby Zones 4 is cleft in twain as are Zones 7, 8 and 9. For added interest there are three parts to Zone 5, and no less than four to Zone 6.
I have no doubt that this proposal would bring nothing but harmony and unity to England in these troubled, divided and uncertain times. No longer will a resident of say Glossop wonder if he or she lives in the East Midlands or the North West but will say proudly to themselves ‘I’m Zone 3 born and bred’.
I have given much thought to this proposal; my entire lunch break to be precise. I commend it to the House.

32475 said:

Inspired by the TfL travel zones I hereby propose a zonal system for the new English regions. This is centred on Fenny Drayton which the Ordnance Survey has defined as the geographical centre of England (specifically Lindsey Hall Farm).
Like TfL, I propose 9 zones. Zones 1, 2 and 3 are pretty straightforward. On the map, you will see that once you get to The Wash, this becomes really interesting where the zones become bisected by geography whereby Zones 4 is cleft in twain as are Zones 7, 8 and 9. For added interest there are three parts to Zone 5, and no less than four to Zone 6.
I have no doubt that this proposal would bring nothing but harmony and unity to England in these troubled, divided and uncertain times. No longer will a resident of say Glossop wonder if he or she lives in the East Midlands or the North West but will say proudly to themselves ‘I’m Zone 3 born and bred’.
I have given much thought to this proposal; my entire lunch break to be precise. I commend it to the House.

Click to expand...

Does this mean there will be direct Berwick-Truro trains? If so, I love it!

-

Seriously though, why on earth does England have to be split up? Since Scotland, Wales and NI are devolved, devolve England too and have the regional assembly in Birmingham (NOT Lancs or Yorks!) and keep the "federal" government in Westminster. I have absolutely no idea why this hasn't already been done.

hst43102 said:

Does this mean there will be direct Berwick-Truro trains? If so, I love it!

-

Seriously though, why on earth does England have to be split up? Since Scotland, Wales and NI are devolved, devolve England too and have the regional assembly in Birmingham (NOT Lancs or Yorks!) and keep the "federal" government in Westminster. I have absolutely no idea why this hasn't already been done.

Click to expand...

England is too big to be one unit. It would still be dominated by London anyway, regardless of whether a parliament is in
Birmingham or York, while a part of the purpose is to be giving decision making to a more local level.

32475 said:

Inspired by the TfL travel zones I hereby propose a zonal system for the new English regions. This is centred on Fenny Drayton which the Ordnance Survey has defined as the geographical centre of England (specifically Lindsey Hall Farm).
Like TfL, I propose 9 zones. Zones 1, 2 and 3 are pretty straightforward. On the map, you will see that once you get to The Wash, this becomes really interesting where the zones become bisected by geography whereby Zones 4 is cleft in twain as are Zones 7, 8 and 9. For added interest there are three parts to Zone 5, and no less than four to Zone 6.
I have no doubt that this proposal would bring nothing but harmony and unity to England in these troubled, divided and uncertain times. No longer will a resident of say Glossop wonder if he or she lives in the East Midlands or the North West but will say proudly to themselves ‘I’m Zone 3 born and bred’.
I have given much thought to this proposal; my entire lunch break to be precise. I commend it to the House.
View attachment 102670

Click to expand...

What exactly is the spacing in miles between the concentric circles? ‘The Hunger Games’ also features a system of districts radiating out from a capital in the centre. Of course Fenny Drayton being where it is it should be the capital of England. London could not be worse placed for a capital city, being nowhere near the vast majority of the country, only the south east. The Spanish have got the right idea with where Madrid ended up. Where the zones are not contiguous, could the separate parts be referred to as zones 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b, 5c, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d etc or alternately 4N, 4S, 5N, 5E, 5S, 6N, 6E, 6S and 6W?

hst43102 said:

Does this mean there will be direct Berwick-Truro trains? If so, I love it!

Click to expand...

I don’t know how you can suggest such a thing! Such a service would involve passing through all other zones in England to reach its destination!

hst43102 said:

Seriously though, why on earth does England have to be split up? Since Scotland, Wales and NI are devolved, devolve England too and have the regional assembly in Birmingham (NOT Lancs or Yorks!) and keep the "federal" government in Westminster. I have absolutely no idea why this hasn't already been done.

Click to expand...

I believe a certain pair of skyscrapers in America were blown up, leading to a war which cost Cherie Booth’s husband his credibility, after all devolution was his initiative.

Purple Orange said:

England is too big to be one unit. It would still be dominated by London anyway, regardless of whether a parliament is in
Birmingham or York, while a part of the purpose is to be giving decision making to a more local level.

Click to expand...

Which is why England should be split into at least 3 pieces, being ‘North’, ‘South’ and ‘London’. London should be a separate Capital Territory akin to Canberra or Washington D.C. and certainly not part of the same England that has a border with Scotland 300 miles away. There may also be an argument for a Central/Midlands zone.

It is very unfortunate that while Scotland is lucky enough to have a Scottish Parliament with the ability to counteract a level of ignorance, mistreatment and underinvestment from London, the same can’t be said for large parts of the north of England, which would be much better off being run from Edinburgh than from London, especially the ones which are closer to it.

Plotting the perpendicular bisector of Edinburgh and London reveals that curiously, while Liverpool, Leeds and York are closer to Edinburgh than London, Manchester, Sheffield and Hull are closer to London than Edinburgh.