Seat of a devolved English assembly

[Craigo]

If the UK were to create a devolved Parliament for England (either at some point in the second half of the 20th century or in the future) along the lines of the Scottish Parliament at Edinburgh, where would it meet?

Some possibilities:

1. London - An obvious choice, as it's the cultural, economic, and population center of England already. Too boring though.
2. Canterbury - Seat of the Church of England and home to great historical significance, though a bit small and not at all centrally located.
3. Winchester - Ancient capital city of England gives it some cachet, but a bit too small as well.
4. Cambridge/Oxford - Biggest problem with either is that the other would raise hell.

Any other suggestions?

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Birmingham/Manchester.

 

[libbrit]

A devolved English assembly could either be in another part of London (hell, another part of the Palace of Westminster, the place is that big!),if they refused to change the English capital, but i think the pressure to move north would be irresistable.

York is often the most suggested symbolic seat of a devolved English government for historic reasons, however York perhaps doesnt have the infrastructure due to its relatively small size, and being situated rather off the main transport links.

What could happen is that England ends up kind of with a set up similar to the EU, where Brussels is the seat of the administration, but Strasbourg also hosts the parliament.

In the English context, that could mean having parliament sitting in York, and the First Minster having an office and an official residence in York, but the actual government offices and minstries being housed in a more well connected city, relatively nearby, such as Leeds or even Manchester-what with Manchester being home to Media City, the northern base for the BBC, as well as nearby Manchester Airport, the main motorway links to London and the south, and being on the planned HS2 route. Some might say why not just use Manchester altogether? Good luck getting other northern cities like Leeds, Newcastle or especially Liverpool to support that. York has the benefit of historic resonance, as well as being relatively inoffensive to most other parts of the country.

Oxford/Cambridge are far too much viewed as affluent leafy university towns catering to the upper echelons of society, and would put the noses of the the more urban, working class north out of joint-the leafy affluent home counties already get far too much government attention.

Winchester is much to much of a small market town.

Canterbury having its religion connotations is all very well, but England isnt particularly religion, so the religious significance wont appeal to many people.

 

[Ashtagon]

Birmingham/Manchester.

Pretty much this. Birmingham has a more central location and better transport for the entire country overall. Manchester is a close competitor in this regard too. However, Manchester is strongly Labour, while Birmingham is a bit more mixed, politically. This would likely make Birmingham a more palatable choice.

London can easily do this, but there would be a lot of political pressure to have it in another location, in order to silence critics who say the UK government places London above all else, and a devolved English parliament would simply end up as more of the same.

York, Canterbury, and Winchester, despite their historical links, are just too small and lack transport infrastructure these days. Oxford and Cambridge are notable university towns, but lack any political history on a national scale to have appropriate "gravitas" (plus, size and infrastructure issues).

 

[libbrit]

Pretty much this. Birmingham has a more central location and better transport for the entire country overall. Manchester is a close competitor in this regard too. However, Manchester is strongly Labour, while Birmingham is a bit more mixed, politically. This would likely make Birmingham a more palatable choice.

London can easily do this, but there would be a lot of political pressure to have it in another location, in order to silence critics who say the UK government places London above all else, and a devolved English parliament would simply end up as more of the same.

York, Canterbury, and Winchester, despite their historical links, are just too small and lack transport infrastructure these days. Oxford and Cambridge are notable university towns, but lack any political history on a national scale to have appropriate "gravitas" (plus, size and infrastructure issues).

York isnt that small at all. Its population is almost 200 000.

By comparison, Winchester has a population of 40K, and Canterbury, 55K.

 

[Thande]

Leeds might be a possibility--it has the infrastructure being a local government hub (as in a local hub for the government, not a hub for local government) but isn't in the top tier of Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool who will all veto each other.

 

[Lindseyman]

York is often the most suggested symbolic seat of a devolved English government for historic reasons, however York perhaps doesnt have the infrastructure due to its relatively small size, and being situated rather off the main transport links.

So being on the ECML is isolated from a main transport link????

 

[libbrit]

So being on the ECML is isolated from a main transport link????

Well, is it also on the main north-south Motorways and served by an international airport like Manchester?

Compared to Manchester it is relatively isolated (relatively), transport wise.

 

[Craigo]

Leeds might be a possibility--it has the infrastructure being a local government hub (as in a local hub for the government, not a hub for local government) but isn't in the top tier of Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool who will all veto each other.

That was my concern as well - those three (and Bristol) seem like obvious choices due to infrastructure and prominence, but none of them would want the other to have it.

Maybe a medium sized city of less prominence but good transportation links, like Coventry? That's less likely to arouse the jealousy of the big cities. Fairly good location also.

 

[libbrit]

Maybe a medium sized city of less prominence but good transportation links, like Coventry? That's less likely to arouse the jealousy of the big cities. Fairly good location also.

And about as historically resonant and interesting as moving the government to Milton Keynes

 

[Lindseyman]

Harrogate Conference Centre
Big enough building for assembly and offices, loads of hotels in Harrogate and York, Leeds etc and its not going to upset any of the big cities.

 

[Nick P]

If the UK were to create a devolved Parliament for England (either at some point in the second half of the 20th century or in the future) along the lines of the Scottish Parliament at Edinburgh, where would it meet?

Any other suggestions?

If I may turn the question around a bit.....
If the UK were to create a devolved Parliament for England, would there be a Federal UK Government and where might that meet?

Because this would need to be more central to the UK than London but would really be smaller. The people would have their local national MPs but for overall coverage there'd be a need for a regional, city or county representative within the UK govt, maybe 100 Senators or Lords.

I say Westminster in the House of Commons for the England Govt and the (former) House of Lords for the UK Govt, unless that is deemed too close for comfort.

 

[libbrit]

If I may turn the question around a bit.....
If the UK were to create a devolved Parliament for England, would there be a Federal UK Government and where might that meet?

Because this would need to be more central to the UK than London but would really be smaller. The people would have their local national MPs but for overall coverage there'd be a need for a regional, city or county representative within the UK govt, maybe 100 Senators or Lords.

I say Westminster in the House of Commons for the England Govt and the (former) House of Lords for the UK Govt, unless that is deemed too close for comfort.

The UK federal govt would undoubtedly be in Westminster-the word `Westminster` is synonymous with the UK government, just as `Holyrood` is synonymous with the Scottish govt, or `Stormont` with NI. An English government would have to adopt a denonym based on where it was based. The UK govt would still require a two chamber parliament-more than ever if a federal govt, so hiving off the commons to England, and the Lords to Britain, wouldn't work unless the UK government had some massively beefed up committees-and weak committee scrutiny of a unicameral parliament is one of the current criticisms of the Scottish parliament; the Scottish govt has packed the various committees with its own people, so the scrutiny of legislation is considered poor

The UK parliament after all, would still be responsible for a hell of a lot, and so undoubtedly the UK infrastructure would remain large. So why cause more upheaval than is needed and move the national govt, with responsibility for dealing with the outside world, from the world city that is London, with its connections to the continent and the world via its media centrality, its airport and channel tunnel hubs, cultural centrality etc.

By extension, the English govt would be smaller-it would not need to worry about defence, foreign affairs etc etc, so no need for it to usurp the Westminster denonym.

Hell, if the UK govt wanted to go all US and have direct control of the area in which it was based, the UK could declare the precincts of the Palace Westminster and Whitehal-or even the entire City of Westminster, as the sovereign possession of the UK govt,and not under the jurisdiction of the English government. Westminster council could remain as it is, but its governmental authority would be the federal UK govt, not the English govt-vaguely like DC being under the jurisdiction of the UK congress, not the state of Virginia or Maryland

If the English govt was to stay in London, it wouldnt need to be anywhere near Westminster-the great thing about London is it has any number of places from which to build a legislature-and id rather use a nice pre existing building that build from scratch, an expensive architectural monstrosity like the Scottish parliament building.

 

[Meadow]

Vote YES to the Bullring Parliament.

 

[Ashtagon]

The other reason I would suggest Birmingham is because it is symbolically very close to Tamworth, the original capital of Mercia.

 

[Craigo]

The other reason I would suggest Birmingham is because it is symbolically very close to Tamworth, the original capital of Mercia.

I was warming to the idea of a dual capital suggested earlier - the cabinet/executive and legislature in an historical area like York or Winchester or Canterbury, while the bureaucracy resides in a better equipped city like Manchester, Leeds, or Birmingham.

But Tamworth could also play the first role, hosting the executive while the parliament itself sits in Birmingham.

 

[libbrit]

I was warming to the idea of a dual capital suggested earlier - the cabinet/executive and legislature in an historical area like York or Winchester or Canterbury, while the bureaucracy resides in a better equipped city like Manchester, Leeds, or Birmingham.

.

Well, it works in quite a few place-or has at various points (Brussels-Strasbourg, Johannesburg-Capetown,even for a while Bonn-Berlin)

 

[Craigo]

Well, it works in quite a few place-or has at various points (Brussels-Strasbourg, Johannesburg-Capetown,even for a while Bonn-Berlin)

Oh, sure. South Africa even has a role for Bloemfontein, if I remember correctly, and Amsterdam-Hague have had this relationship for quite a while.

 

[Devvy]

Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool/Leeds/Newcastle will all veto each other.

Nottingham would be my suggestion for a neutral venue, that is well connected and reasonably central.

 

[libbrit]

Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool/Leeds/Newcastle will all veto each other.

Nottingham would be my suggestion for a neutral venue, that is well connected and reasonably central.

The issue is, that those cities wouldnt have the power to veto anything-however, if the city councils of the `left out` cities started vocally complaining, then the new parliament would have something of a legitimacy problem.