J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,671
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 1, 2023 22:01:10 GMT
I wonder whether the Midlands would be better split north-south, rather than east-west. I’d be in favour of smaller regions, which are more representative of a shared cultural identity etc. What sense, for instance, does it make to have Banbury and Dover in the same region. The West Midlands is generally a coherent area, although Herefordshire and Shropshire have more in common with Wales and the West Country than the West Midlands; West Mercia (including Worcestershire, where the east is better connected with the proper West Midlands but where the west looks to Herefordshire)) should be a separate region in its own right. Lincolnshire would fit in better with East Anglia, and Northamptonshire with the Chiltern area, leaving Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire to form a North Midlands region. Radio Hallam's signiture used to be "Covering South Yorkshire and the North Midlands".
|
|
ntyuk1707
Conservative
Posts: 466
Member is Online
|
Post by ntyuk1707 on Oct 2, 2023 8:46:07 GMT
I've posted this before, but these are the regions I'd advocate: Dividing Scotland into "Greater Glasgow" and "Not Greater Glasgow" is absolutely ridiculous. Ayrshire for example has much more in common with Greater Glasgow than the Western or Northern Isles. That is not to say it should belong in the same region as Greater Glasgow, but that map is horrific. If you want to divide Scotland into regions the NHS boards is a better starting point.
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Oct 2, 2023 9:02:50 GMT
For reference
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Oct 2, 2023 9:03:55 GMT
And while I'm here
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,809
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Oct 2, 2023 9:18:19 GMT
The good old days of television before ITV1, ITV2 etc. I used to love watching the Thames and LWT idents as a child. They should go back to the regional idents, makes everything homely. Which would also mean the return of this
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,652
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 2, 2023 9:22:29 GMT
Scotland is basically three regions in effect - Southern Uplands, Central Belt, and Highlands?
|
|
ntyuk1707
Conservative
Posts: 466
Member is Online
|
Post by ntyuk1707 on Oct 2, 2023 10:07:08 GMT
Scotland is basically three regions in effect - Southern Uplands, Central Belt, and Highlands? I wouldn't say so. For example, Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire (Central Belt) are more socio-economically tied to Moray (Highlands & Islands) than, say, the central west of Scotland.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 2, 2023 11:40:38 GMT
Scotland is basically three regions in effect - Southern Uplands, Central Belt, and Highlands? Four, really, with North East Scotland (Aberdeenshire, Angus, Banff, Moray, and Perthshire) being the fourth, although like the Highlands it was traditionally better for the SNP than Strathclyde, Fife, or the Borders.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 2, 2023 13:18:33 GMT
I've posted this before, but these are the regions I'd advocate: Dividing Scotland into "Greater Glasgow" and "Not Greater Glasgow" is absolutely ridiculous. Ayrshire for example has much more in common with Greater Glasgow than the Western or Northern Isles. That is not to say it should belong in the same region as Greater Glasgow, but that map is horrific. If you want to divide Scotland into regions the NHS boards is a better starting point. I have often wondered what would be the best way of splitting Scotland into two equal regions or constituencies (or whatever you call them). One option would be to have one half with Glasgow, Edinburgh & Central Belt, and the other half with Borders, Southern Uplands, Highlands, North-East. But that means that one half is cut in two by the other half. The alternative would be to have a North/South split (in which case, which side of the line are Edinburgh and Glasgow?) or even a West/ East split.
|
|
ntyuk1707
Conservative
Posts: 466
Member is Online
|
Post by ntyuk1707 on Oct 2, 2023 13:36:03 GMT
Dividing Scotland into "Greater Glasgow" and "Not Greater Glasgow" is absolutely ridiculous. Ayrshire for example has much more in common with Greater Glasgow than the Western or Northern Isles. That is not to say it should belong in the same region as Greater Glasgow, but that map is horrific. If you want to divide Scotland into regions the NHS boards is a better starting point. I have often wondered what would be the best way of splitting Scotland into two equal regions or constituencies (or whatever you call them). One option would be to have one half with Glasgow, Edinburgh & Central Belt, and the other half with Borders, Southern Uplands, Highlands, North-East. But that means that one half is cut in two by the other half. The alternative would be to have a North/South split (in which case, which side of the line are Edinburgh and Glasgow?) or even a West/ East split. I would put Greater Glasgow, northern Ayrshire, Falkirk, Clackmannanshire, Fife and Dundee in one region like so: Remaining areas in another. I find west/east to be a more intuitive split than north/south, however this generally goes in reference to the Central Belt, the 'west' being most of Strathclyde bar most of Argyll and Bute, the 'east' being Lothian and Fife.
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Oct 2, 2023 13:59:50 GMT
I would say the east/west split goes beyond the Central Belt - for instance Dumfries and Galloway has a definite western feel (and in terms of transport links and culture belongs with Ayrshire and Clydesdale rather than with the Borders). The Borders on the other hand have more of a link with Edinburgh and the Lothians.
I'm not as familiar with northern Scotland but when I was there, I did notice that Fort William also felt distinctly western. I seem to remember reading that a lot of its population were Glaswegians who came up to work in the Aluminium smeltery, but can't find a source for it - that'd perhaps be a partial explanation.
|
|
|
Post by spinach on Oct 2, 2023 17:52:50 GMT
As an advocate for the historic counties, we should abolish this: And replace the local authorities with similar boundaries as below (respecting the historic counties)
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 2, 2023 20:50:32 GMT
Scotland is basically three regions in effect - Southern Uplands, Central Belt, and Highlands? I wouldn't say so. For example, Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire (Central Belt) are more socio-economically tied to Moray (Highlands & Islands) than, say, the central west of Scotland. Nobody in Aberdeen thinks they live in the Central Belt. I can't recall ever having heard it used to describe anywhere north of Fife.
|
|
ntyuk1707
Conservative
Posts: 466
Member is Online
|
Post by ntyuk1707 on Oct 2, 2023 22:55:14 GMT
I wouldn't say so. For example, Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire (Central Belt) are more socio-economically tied to Moray (Highlands & Islands) than, say, the central west of Scotland. Nobody in Aberdeen thinks they live in the Central Belt. I can't recall ever having heard it used to describe anywhere north of Fife. Sorry a bit confused there, I meant to say Lowlands! Highlands vs. Central belt comparison is a bit weird because many areas fall into neither.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,017
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on Oct 3, 2023 0:03:58 GMT
As an advocate for the historic counties, we should abolish this: And replace the local authorities with similar boundaries as below (respecting the historic counties) Are you familiar with a former poster called foggy?
|
|
|
Post by wysall on Oct 3, 2023 10:02:51 GMT
I do like how so many people identify with the ‘historic’ counties (or the mangled forms of them) that were it seems designed specifically to crack their traditional identities.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Oct 3, 2023 10:04:47 GMT
As an advocate for the historic counties, we should abolish this: And replace the local authorities with similar boundaries as below (respecting the historic counties) Do you think we should keep all the various detached parts with their original county as well?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,652
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 3, 2023 10:31:24 GMT
Are you familiar with a former poster called foggy? Still posts here on occasion.
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,994
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Oct 3, 2023 11:07:22 GMT
I do like how so many people identify with the ‘historic’ counties (or the mangled forms of them) that were it seems designed specifically to crack their traditional identities. Yes, it's like subtle but irreconcilable doctrinal differences incomprehensible to the uninitiated.
For instance, the posted map shows counties as they were immediately before the 1974 reforms (except that it's wrong because Warley CB was technically part of Worcs, not Staffs as shown - not that it made a jot of practical difference). But many 'historic county' advocates would want to see Middlesex on the map, with Barnet in Herts, Worcs covering much of the southern half of Birmingham, Stockton in Co. Durham; to say nothing of the various exclaves on which a true purist would insist (Dudley, Bedlingham, Norham & Islandshire, Halesowen and countless others).
And they tend to ignore counties corporate, but why? They were definitely counties in a strict sense (and I don't think they have ever been officially abolished).
So 'historic county' supporters should be clear about exactly which set of boundaries they support; and why that particular one rather than any of the others.
It's like engaging with supporters of voting reform. Ask whether they support PR and you'll get unanimous agreement, much fairer, only democratic way, &c. Then ask which exact form of PR they want, and watch the unanimity evaporate.
|
|
|
Post by spinach on Oct 3, 2023 13:49:14 GMT
Are you familiar with a former poster called foggy? I'm unfamiliar with Foggy as I'm new to Vote UK Forum But I'm interested to hear from him if he has posted about UK counties and other type of UK boundaries.
|
|