Rationalising England. 7 states based on ancient kingdoms

[madd0ct0r]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27731725

It seems to me that progressive, reasonable, pacific and prosperous states - like the Nordic countries, or Switzerland or New Zealand - tend to be less than 10 million people. That's almost intimate, for a nation. Citizens of smaller countries feel pride and connection. The population is small enough to have deliberative public policy, which takes account of local needs. The health service and the education service seem less distant from everyday lives. Folk feel more involved and valued. I can imagine how Scotland might achieve that, with only five million. But what about the rest of us?

Here's where those years of studying Anglo-Saxon history come in. Before Alfred the Great unified the English in resistance to the Danes, England was not one country. Between about 500 and 850 AD, it was a heptarchy, meaning seven kingdoms, although in truth the number tended to fluctuate. If memory serves, the leading members of the heptarchy comprised Northumbria, Wessex, Mercia, and East Anglia. The others were Sussex, Kent and Essex, although there was quite a bit of boundary change happening for the three centuries or so that this era lasted - all very much Game of Thrones.

Alfred the Great
Alfred the Great united the English in resistance to the Danes
What happens if we put away again the swords and spears, and think in terms of England as heptarchy? Divide 50 million by seven, and you would get a neat set of seven countries, each at seven million souls. Wessex gets the West country and Bristol and the Thames Valley and the South Coast. Cornwall has just been recognised as a distinct region, and this way the whole South West gets to control its own destiny.

Continue reading the main story
The Anglo-Saxons

Sutton Hoo helmet
From barbarian invaders to devout Christian missionaries, the Anglo-Saxons brought 400 years of religious evolution and shifting political power to the British Isles.

BBC History: Anglo-Saxons
Mercia would be the Midlands and up as far as Manchester, home of manufacturing, with heavy metal and indie music as important exports. Northumbria has the rest of the North. East Anglia could take over Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire as well as Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. That leaves Kent and Sussex to fight over the South East, with London as a new statelet on its own. I haven't done the maths yet, but I imagine you could do something neat to balance it all out. So then you would have Scotland, Wales and seven English territories on the island of Britain, all of approximately the same scale, and all with a chance of building a sense of identity for themselves. It's no coincidence, that these statelets would be about the same size as the average American state or a Nordic country.

There would be plenty of advantages. Rationalisation of the 30 or so British police forces is long overdue, and this way there would be seven obvious territories for separate police forces. Sport would become very interesting, as the seven home nations battled it out with each other, and with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland at cricket and rugby and football. The new dispensation would suit the traditionalists, because it would be rooted in a history going back to the Dark Ages, and it would suit progressive types, because it's all about devolution and bringing power closer to the citizen.

Newcastle upon Tyne at night
Newcastle - "Northumbrians already fly their flag with pride"
For most of my adult life, I have lived in regions that were proud of their identity, and keen to throw off the shackles of central government. Twenty years ago, I moved up to Newcastle, and in my experience, most Geordies are itching for their bit of home rule. Northumbrians already fly their flag with pride. After that, I lived for five years in Switzerland, which has been a confederation of small independent republics since the medieval period. Geneva and the other 25 cantons all rule themselves very happily, with a strong sense of local pride and distinctiveness. And now I live in Norwich, where Norfolk patriotism has a rural fervour of its own. So all this makes perfect sense to me.

Continue reading the main story
More from the Magazine

A woman with Union Jack face paint and a man with a Scotland flag
In September voters in Scotland will go to the polls to decide whether or not to become independent. Campaigners and commentators have made much of the implications for people north of the border - but how would an independent Scotland impact on the rest of the UK and Europe?

What would Scottish independence mean for the rest of the UK? (November 2013
Each of these new seven states, together with the other countries of the Disunited Kingdom, could set its own policies. People could decide which type of regime they wanted to be a citizen of, and move house to somewhere they felt they belonged. These new states would compete with each other economically, as well as in terms of sports and culture, and this competition would drive up standards for everyone. Forget the Dark Ages, it could be a new Golden Age, thanks to the re-thinking which Scottish independence would surely force on the rest of us who were left behind.

[Crazedwraith]

Sounds like an excellent way to fuck over the north even more. Not only did the unified government kill all the industry to concentrate on london, then we then separate into nations so the south can whip their hands clean of the mess they've made.

But I forget. Competition makes everything better right?

[madd0ct0r]

states, not nations Crazed Wraith. Still acting under a federal goverment.

[Darth Tanner]

Labour tried to introduce region parliaments before and it failed wherever the people were asked... no one wants yet another layer of shitty politicians with no benefits on top of the existing layers. It's bad enough we decided to divide our EU voting block up by region with the aim to shit on the minor parties.

To be honest the constant nationalism and petty localism just gets to me... everyone will end up in a country comprising of their house.

states, not nations Crazed Wraith. Still acting under a federal goverment.

As a first step. With more localised power comes more localised taxation and spending control which would benefit London & SE where the majority of revenue is taken. Assuming central government does not impose an equal level of redistribution as currently... in which case the regions have gained no new powers so what was the point?