Talk:Politics of England

initial comment

I have expanded this page substantially, particularly in regards to the devolution of Scotland, Wales and London, the Cornish issue, and also the regional debate. --MacRusgail 16:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You should add the sources of your information. Tim! 06:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The devolution of Scotland and Wales hardly need "sources". I live in one of them! The article was appallingly small, and as such I have tended to link into other wikipedia articles, which are better sourced. I get the impression it was mainly intended as a "gateway page". --MacRusgail 18:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In one of the first paragraphs, it says "every" when it should say "ever." I will change it. jcm

Devolution of London

Part of England is already devolved - London!!! That section needs to be developed. Also I would argue that the English parliament never went away, it just expanded to include surrounding countries... --MacRusgail 10:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Subdivisions

East of
England

London

South East

South West

East
Midlands

West
Midlands

Yorkshire and
the Humber

North
East

North
West

Main article: Administrative divisions of England

See also: Counties of England

Historically, the highest level of local government in England was the county. These divisions had emerged from a range of units of old, pre-unification England (such as the Kingdoms of Sussex and Kent) and further mediaeval reorganisations (sometimes using duchies such as Lancashire and Cornwall). These historical county lines were usually drawn up before the industrial revolution and the mass urbanisation of England. The counties each had a county town and many county names were drawn from these (for example Nottinghamshire, from Nottingham).

A series of local government reorganisations have taken place since the latter part of the nineteenth century. The solution to the emergence of large urban areas was the creation of large metropolitan counties centred on cities (an example being Greater Manchester). The creation of unitary authorities, where districts gained the administrative status of a county, began with the 1990s reform of local government. Today, some confusion exists between the ceremonial counties (which do not necessarily form an administrative unit) and the metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties.

Non-metropolitan counties (or "shire counties") are divided into one or more districts. At the very lowest level, England is divided into parishes, though these are not to be found everywhere (many urban areas for example are unparished). Parishes are prohibited from existing in Greater London.

England is now also divided into nine regions, which do not have an elected authority and exist to co-ordinate certain local government functions across a wider area. London is an exception, however, and is the one region which now has a representative authority as well as a directly elected mayor. The 32 London boroughs and the Corporation of London remain the local form of government in the city.

Fair use rationale for Image:Cep logo.GIF

Image:Cep logo.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've re-organised the sections

Hope this is an improvement. Perhaps individual sections can now be expanded. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! I spent a bit of time and care trying to make a number of changes I thought were improvements - I think that reverting everything I did in one click is too strong a response. Do you really disagree with every change I made? I tried to move some of the sections around into a better order and I carefully moved the entire sections. The only section I deleted was with regards to Berwick (which I did not believe is an issue of controversy in either England or Scotland.) I also deleted a little bit as I changed and updated the section about England in the House of Commons. The bit about how Scottish legislation was voted on pre-devolution I changed because it was wrong. If you do disagree with all my changes, feel free to revert my revert and I will not revert back again! (though I will still try to correct the incorrect bit I referred to above, which I'm sure you won't object to.) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Berwick is relevant, since England believes it to be part of it, but never properly annexed it, and it arguably violates treaties etc. However, this article has to be better than a whinge about the evil "Celts" - something which seems to be a problem with English politics. There always has to be an outside scapegoat. I am glad that the London devolution section was not removed, merely moved. I will go over it, and see that it doesn't descend into rant. --MacRusgail (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC) p.s. As regards Scottish question time in Westminster, MPs from English constituencies used to go to these meetings and take up a lot of time commenting on stuff which had nothing to do with them, much to the ire of many Scots. So the West Lothian question's allegations were hardly one way. After all, England has forced various things on Scotland and Wales, e.g. Tryweryn, after the majority of MPs from those countries voted against them.

Cheers. The best example I would use of the West Lothian question working the other way was the Poll Tax being inflicted on Scotland despite overwhelming majority of Scottish MPs being against - the conservatives claimed it was acceptable to do this as we were all part of a UK parliament, but the Conservatives produced a separate Scottish manifesto, got defeated in the election in Scotland, then imposed their ideas anyway based on having a huge majority south of the border! Well, the shoes on the other foot now!!! Cheers again Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edits to the bullet points. This is nothing personal, I just feel that the salient points can be picked up more quickly if they are "bulleted".--MacRusgail (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:English Democrats Party 1.jpg

The image Image:English Democrats Party 1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Doubleplus unfree - language like this is straight out of 1984!!! --MacRusgail (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Status of... sections

Yorkshirian would like the sections "Status of Cornwall", "Status of Berwick-on-Tweed" and "Status of the Isle of Wight" removed.[1] I have reverted this, and would like us to reach a consensus on the inclusion, reduction or removal or each section. On a quick look 1. the sourcing for status of Cornwall needs to be better as it rests on one MP too much at the moment, e.g. I recall Peter Tatchell supporting calls for Cornish independence, 2. The Isle of Wight needs sourcing or removing, and the fringe view expressed needs balancing, I'd never heard of an Isle of Wight independence movement, 3. Berwick-upon-Tweed section could do with trimming, probably by removing quotes; it can briefly summarise what will be expressed in full in the Berwick article. Thoughts? Fences&Windows 01:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Id say there is justification for a mention of the status of cornwall considering we have several articles on it, seen as theres a mention of the area in dispute with Wales may as well mention the one with Scotland. But there is no justification at all for the isle of wight one so i have removed it. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In Sheffield Metro Mayor elections there was pandering to Yorkshire independence. Perhaps individual Status should each have their own pages (eg. linked to Yorkshire page), with just one small paragraph on border issues / separatism / independence on Politics of England. These (minor) issues are not debated all over anywhere, and mostly raised by other nations nationalists.BillCaxton (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The majority of it is fringe stuff, put in the article by MacRusgail. Obviously as Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of Encyclopedic information, rather than an indiscriminate collection of all information and trivia, it fails in a major way WP:FRINGE, WP:CRUFT and WP:UNDUE, not belonging in a general overview of Politics of England IMO. Cornwall? 93% of the populance of this county did not vote for the national separatist party in its area only last month. Not worthy of section in this article. Isle of Wight? An exinct party who only stood once in the 1970s, where is gained only 2.8% of the vote, deserving of its own section in an overview of the politics of England? Not quite. The Berwick crankery too is very much in the same cat, info is pure cruft, triva, fringe area... if it belongs anywhere it belongs at Christine Grahame (or Scottish nationalism), a person who is an MSP in a different country, not on a general overview of the politics of England. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I do think if there is to be a mention of the status of cornwall it shouldnt be in that section on devolution and its certainly VERY badly worded. "some regarding it as a county" is totally biased.. It IS a county and that is what the overwhelming majority of people accept and think. Perhaps we could just have a single section to cover, Status of Berwick-upon-Tweed , Status of Monmouthshire and Status of Cornwall.. they need only a paragraph on each not whole sections. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you would like to see this removed Yorkshirian, but it's all referenced, unfortunately. However, for what it's worth, there's also a section on the status of Monmouthshire, which is now generally considered part of Wales, but which has been a "debatable" land.

Cornwall is not merely another county, and saying that shall not make it so. Some regard it as a county, like you, and some do not. It has a highly unusual position within England. Ditto Berwick-upon-Tweed, which is anomalous, but for different reasons (international treaties amongst other things). These are not merely "fringe" positions, they are ones backed up by legal documents amongst other things. The Berwick debate is one which is far better known in Scotland than in England.

By the way, there is a bill on Cornish self-government being read in the House of Commons right now. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC) p.s. Yorkshirian, do learn the difference between "separatism" as you put it, and "devolution".

Cornwall is just a county of England, like many counties it has a distinct history. Those that challange Cornwalls status as a county of England like Mebyon Kernow are indeed separatists so Yorkshirian was right on that.

Anyway the rewording that has taken place to the status of Cornwall section is very good.. It is now far more accurate and balanced. Well done to who ever reworded it. I wouldnt oppose adding on to the end of the last sentence about the private members bill, although if its mentioned it needs to be put into proportion, there is no way its going to become law like dozens of other Private members bills every year. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall is not merely another county, as you full well know. In fact, I've never understood why the British establishment seeks to bury the question. There are at least half a dozen ways in which it qualifies as something quite different. Part of the problem here, is that constitutionally, we are dealing with a number of contradictory documents. Funny how the British establishment favours the so called "Ulster Scots", i.e. Northern Irish Protestants, but seeks to ignore a group which has been around for at least five times as long. Maybe one lot has a common agenda with it, and the other doesn't.

The fact that you pick on Mebyon Kernow, a party which has been running for decades, but say nothing about the tiny Free England Party speaks volumes. I would include both. MK for its longevity (it's been around much longer than UKIP or the Lib Dems for example), and the English nationalist/devolutionist angle because it is completely relevant to the article title. The Isle of Wight material should be of interest, but unlike the Cornish stuff, hasn't been able to maintain any staying power.

I would remind you that Mebyon Kernow are not in the main "separatists" (a highly POV term, BTW), but devolutionists. The main thrust in Cornwall, even amongst nationalists is for an assembly, rather than the out and out independence that the SNP seeks in Scotland. (Even Plaid Cymru tends towards devolution more than independence traditionally.)

You complain that most of this material has been added by me. In fact, I think most of this article is down to me. I enlarged it, added stuff about the London Assembly, European constituencies, parishes etc, and most recently the CofE, none of which can be construed as "fringe". The difficulty was finding material which was specifically English, rather than British.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why its in the "devolution" section though, since no individual counties in England are "devolved". There is no such thing as a county "assembly", like Wales has. But it should be put in context that MK are a minority even in Cornwall. 93% of people who live in the county didn't vote for them only last month, but voted in the Tories by some margain. I think your suggestion of one catch all section for this sort of thing, including the Monmouthshire stuff, was a good one. There needs to be one on the politics of Scotland article for Shetland and Orkney too - as well as the historical border dispute with England over control of the Lothian and Borders. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually you're wrong, London is devolved. There is, however, a bizarre network of regional assemblies around England, for which see the relevant section. These are unelected, but I think John Prescott's plan was that his north east England referendum would succeed, and he would be able to rubberstamp the other ones by similar referenda. [edit to add - I'm guessing you have some Yorkshire connection from your user name. I gather that support for a Yorkshire assembly is supposed to be higher than the artificial regions]

You are right about Orkney and Shetland (which are slightly separate from one another). There are in fact a number of articles on this topic, such as Udal law, Norn language and Forvik. You are wrong however about the Lothian and Borders dispute. This has not been continuously running, and the people in these areas do not consider themselves English in the slightest, or have a dual identity like some people in Berwick do. The only parts of the Border possibly in dispute are Berwick upon Tweed and the Debatable Lands. Some people in Cumberland stuck a sign "Welcome to Scotland" some miles south of the Border, but that's pretty much modern fancy too, and the locals tore it down, so I don't think the idea is popular there. (Carlisle was David I's capital for a while, but Scots make no claim to it really)

It is a mistake, by the way, to conflate Cornish nationalism exclusively with MK. Not only are there other organisations, but mainstream parties, such as the Lib Dems, and their Liberal predecessors have been milking it for years. Even the Tories have got in on the act recently. Andrew George MP is very much a Cornish nationalist, for example, taking his oath in Cornish, and campaigning for an assembly and David Penhaligon was a Liberal example.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no good reason to include separate devolution topics here. They should be dealt with through a wikilink to devolution, which in and of itself, should cover the issues. Otherwise, it is just transparent activism. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is, it's because these are specifically issues related to the politics of England, rather than the UK, and cannot fit in well elsewhere. And no, it's not activism. I have absolutely no interest in the status of the Isle of Wight. --MacRusgail (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Church of England

I would suggest that this article also needs a section on the Church of England. The CofE sends representatives to the Lords, is largely appointed by the crown, and there have also been various arguments over the centuries about establishment, and disestablishment.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"England did get a majority Conservative government"? Really??

The section #2010_General_Election >> at this link << does not make sense, my friends.

• However, England did get a majority Conservative government as the Conservative party won only a handful of the 117 constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Maybe the above sentence should read something like

• However, the UK did not get a majority Conservative government as the Conservative party won only a handful of the 117 constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Can a UK expert fix this please? Thanks. Rednblu (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Welsh Bicknor duplications need un-reverting

Politics of England has no-one in Welsh Bicknor standing to leave and rejoin wales - so arguably just a border, not political issue. BillCaxton (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll look at it again but may revert. You need to read WP:BRD, if you are reverted you leave the main article as it was until agreement is reached to change on the talk page. -----Snowded ^TALK 22:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

As SNOWDEN is a Welsh Nationalist, please declare interest in Bicknor / English Politics first? You are reverting to control this page (I was in the process of adding references). Notably, no work has been done on UK, in spite of bringing to your attention. I am late to this party, but EU elections were in June and still missing, maybe you can work elsewhere on Politics in United Kingdom, and come back to Politics in England monday?

Repeatedly you are reverting without starting a Talk to detail any justification. By all means revert, but start a Talk on why. There are rather a long list of references to England being blamed for Brexit for example, that takes time.BillCaxton (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

General bloat of Status

The Politics of England is swamped with other nation material that does not appear relevant or reciprocally on other pages. England ceased being its own nation in 1707 Act of Union, so no need to post Ireland joining etc. If bloat cannot be moved to own, more detailed pages, such as 'West Lothian Question', what is the point in Wikipedia if need to explain everything all over again? KISS Keep it Short & Simple. Don't need hundreds of words about other's Devolution/Independence, other than England is only nation without any vote, ever. N.Ireland was missing from Politics of UK, so I am working on tidying all these Politics of Nations pages. Feel free to help, not hinder with petty squables over oppression in English Bicknor lol. No war (or burnt out cottages) over this border in hundreds of years, I guess it's a non-issue for locals like Henry V (just like Berwick), just outsiders stirring BillCaxton (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC).

Please either buy a time-machine to complain about Bicknor, or preferably send more Penderyn as English Whiskey Co not producing enough BillCaxton (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Brexit blamed primarily on nationalism in England

Please discuss... as adding references (was a bit slow on electoral calculus as certificate iffy)

UK Politics has been locked in Brexit since June 2016 Referendum. Although an international independence issue from the EU, and co-join of the words 'Britain' and 'Exit', many other home nations blame Brexit on (primarily English) 'Nationalism'. Although controversially, there is no active 'English Nationalist Party' to match SNP landslide, many politicians on all sides fear sleeping English giant. In spite of the 2015 landslide for the SNP in Scotland, analysis of constituency demographics continue to show many English constituencies are more nationalistic [Electoral Calculus].

Although (Brexit/English) Nationalism is split across economically Left and Right constituencies, in recent Parliamentary by-elections like Peterborough, tactical voting has allowed Farage's UKIP/Brexit to come much closer (within a few hundred votes) by displacing the traditional 3rd place party. Although over the border in Wales, imminent 2019_Brecon_and_Radnorshire_by-election is more likely to favour centrist LibDem challenge, rather than further insight, although re-fielding a Recall-Petition candidate is a risky strategy that may reveal Brexit Party ability to steal Conservative votes in England.

Although Brexit is often portrayed as a Labour/Northern issue, similar known Midlands and Eastern Ukip 'target' constituencies arise [Revolt on the Right], which Nigel Farage's new Brexit Party currently appear poised to finally challenge where UK branded UKIP could not, even in Wales, where Plaid Cymru should be the 'nationalist' option.

UKIP first campaigned on unfair Barnet-Formula allocation, which Brexit may represent displaced and unaddressed 'Nationalist' canker, with similar Welsh feeling. Scotland and Northern Ireland have faired best under Barnett-Formula re-allocation of spending; and whilst Wales demands 10% higher more spending than England, it still lags well behind. Boris Johnson as current lead candidate for British Prime-Minister, has previously described Barnett as lorries of cash up the M1 to Scotland (failing to appreciate the up 4-lane M1 gives way to single-carriageway A1 towards border at Berwick. With Brexit due to be delivered by Halloween 2019, and the SNP demanding a further Independence Referendum (to rejoin the EU), British and English politics appear eerily inter-twined in a way no devolved government expected before the Millenia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillCaxton (talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17746839.vulgar-english-nationalism-blamed-scottish-independence/ a (Spanish-lol) Catalan journalist cited in Scottish press, can't get more independent than that BillCaxton (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. In effect you are writing an essay on the subject using a selection of sources. If the same essay was written by an academic, or came from a third party reliable source then we could use it; but not from a wikipedia editor-----Snowded ^TALK 10:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

References