Talk:Regions of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Regions of England article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
A summary of this article appears in Subdivisions of England.

Contents

[edit] Dorset

Given that Thomas Hardy's Wessex is Dorset, are people really objecting that the southwest isn't enough like Thomas Hardy's Wessex? That seems implausible. john k 05:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Dorset was, IIRC, South Wessex in Hardy's books, and Wessex as a whole also included Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire, Hampshire and I think more.
Anyway, to the reason I came here: why is there a link to Regions of Denmark in the see also section? How is this relevant? Joe D (t) 19:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I had added it, but its relevance was questioned by at least two other editors, so I have now replaced it with more general-topic see also links. Enjoy! =} //Big Adamsky 19:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

It ought to be dead easy to find people in Hansard or other such source criticising the South East and Eastern regions. But I couldn't. I think we need to restrict ourselves here to cited criticisms, because it's easy to come up with thousands of possible objections ourselves (to any set of boundaries). Morwen - Talk 19:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It is nice to have a source for a truism, but it isn't essential. I am reinstating the deleted material as you damaged the balance of the article by making it imply that the things you happened to find in Hansard are more important than the things you didn't. CalJW 06:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
This section needs to be rewritten. For example: Opponents of regionalism argue that instead of decentralising power from London, the new tier of government will simply take power away from county councils. Not quite sure how this is a criticism as the whole point of regionalisation is that the county council will be totally abolished! MRSC 09:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ofcom

I have deleted the following sentence:

Ofcom propose a phased change to the telephone numbering plan with a wide area code (020, 021, 022 etc.) used for each government office region. [1]

The supporting document appears to be an (undated) discussion document from several years ago. The 2006 Ofcom UK Numbering Plan makes no mention of reorganising numbering on a Regional code basis. Sceptic 18:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

See also UK telephone numbering plan which seems authoritative on area codes Sceptic 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Not convinced. I've read in several places that OFCOM wants to put in region based WACs but cannot make changes until there is enough demand in each exchange. In fact I remember now, they have even reserved the migration plan and do not allocate numbers that would conflict. I will have a dig around for something else to back it up... MRSC 18:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Good hunting... More than happy for it to go back in if you come up with something more concrete. Also are you sure that Ofcom's regions match the govt. office boundaries? Sceptic 18:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I note the Scotsman article, but I'm still not convinced this is anything to do with EU regions. The latest Ofcom consultation document does not mention EU regions. Sceptic 18:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greater London

The template box displays London, but the link is to Greater London. Make up your mind Londoners! --Jay(Reply) 17:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That link is correctly formatted. The region is called London, not Greater London. However, it consists of the territory of the Greater London administrative area. MRSC 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not authentic regions

I think one of the critiscisms of this policy, is that these regions do not represent historical/ cultural regions such as Yorkshire, Cornwall, Lancashire, Northumberland etc. As with the 1974 local govt act with arbitrarily divided up or bound together historic counties to make them more manageable, this act is about bureacracy rather than true regional identity. Could someone find some sources for this, or at least look into it. I'm going to have a go, but I think it's mostly going ot be based on articles in newspapers. 217.196.239.189 14:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a short sentence should be placed at the top of the article to make clear that this article refers to the government's administrative regions as defined by the NUTS classification and pointing to the article Historical and alternative regions of England for alternative definitions of English regions. Sceptic 17:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation

So do we have any scholarly sources for

The United Kingdom was divided into regions by John Major's government in 1994 following the Maastricht Treaty.

What did the Maastricht Treaty have to do with it? Well, it created the Committee of the Regions, but I don't see how the government office regions of England have anything to do with that Committee : are the UK members on it supposed to represent each of the regions? There are 24 UK members, 2 for each of the 12 regions of the UK : the list here doesn't indicate which region people are supposed to be representing. Any idea? I can't find stuff in Hansard. Morwen - Talk 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Jeffery, C., The Regional Dimension of the European Union: Towards a Third Level in Europe? (1997), the treaty is ambiguous, requiring members to be "representatives of regional or local bodies". For states without a regional framework already, the need to create regions is implicit in the treaty rather than a requirement. He goes on to describe how the regions with direct representation (rather than the 'local representatives') gained more influence in decision making and had enhanced rights such as the possibility of delegated voting rights from the member states.
As it stands the statement is true, in so far as one followed the other. In order to have more influence in the CoR it became prudent to have a rhobust regional network with direct representatives from each. To look at it another way, some sort of regional system would have to be set up in order to select the regional/local representatives, so perhaps it was "unavoidable" after the treaty. MRSC 22:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
So how then are the English regions used to select members for the committee of the regions? Morwen - Talk 22:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
As you suggest earler, they provide the framework for the selection. The regional assemblies make proposals to UK government (via the Local Government Association of England & Wales), and the government makes the formal selection based on that.
from [2]: UK members of the Committee of the Regions have an elected mandate from local or devolved authorities. London Assembly Members Jennette Arnold, Robert Neill and Graham Tope are members of the Committee of the Regions.
and from [3] Although the UK Delegation is formally nominated by the UK Government, it receives proposals from the following bodies: the Local Government Association of England & Wales (in consultation with English regional bodies); the Scottish Executive (in consultation with the Scottish Parliament and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities); the Welsh Assembly (in consultation with the Welsh Local Government Association); and the Northern Ireland Assembly (in consultation with the Northern Ireland Local Government Association).
The members are drawn from the elected cllrs/members in the authorities of each region. This list shows their local authority: [4] MRSC 10:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European parliamentary constituencies

Could the article be expanded to explain whether or not the government regions are coterminus with the constituencies for the European parliament? I am sure readers will be confused by the constituencies having the same names as the regions, and could benefit from some explanation of the apparent coincidence. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Since 1999, the nine regions have also been used as England's European Parliament constituencies"

Sorry—it was there all along. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Midlands

Someone wrote 'There has been a call by the counties of Derbyshire, Cheshire, and parts of Linclonshire, Staffordshire and Nottinghamshire to form a new region, to be named the North Midlands. This region is currently under governement discussion, but the counties have alread set the ball rolling, by describing their counties region as The North Midlands.' wether this is true I do not know. London UK (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also if this was true then there would be only three counties in the East Midlands (Rutland, Northampshire and Leicestershire). These would probably become part of the West Midlands and we are back the way we are two midlands but not East or West but North and South. London UK (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cromwell

I have heard that the current regions were roughly decided back in the days of Cromwell. I think it is a myth, but perhaps someone has some information. (Definitely not the heptarchy....) – Kaihsu 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Rule of the Major-Generals; Historical and alternative regions of England#1655-1657. – Kaihsu 13:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Saxon roots?

English regions
English regions
England, 802AD, around tea-time
England, 802AD, around tea-time


Interesting thought which occurs to me - did the definition of these regions have any origin in the ancient Anglo-Saxon kingdoms or England? If you compare the maps, there is a clear likeness between the regions and the likes of Mercia, Wessex, Strathclyde, Northumbria etc.

By design? Or an unintentional connection that grew out of natural cultural boundaries? Hmmm.

Cnbrb 11:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like coincidence, with a little inevitable geographical determinism (places next to each other are often but not always in the same region). The differences are in fact substantial, except for the border of Wales based on Offa's Dyke. --Rumping (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have incorporated the discussions in the two sections above into the article. – Kaihsu (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consist of regions

In the pages of England regions f.e. East of England is write that It includes the ceremonial counties. Because the regions is about local government I think it should consist metropolitan or nonmetropolitan county (district + UA)? Can somebody describe this think for (not Englishman] me? JaT (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)