Leaving aside the now loaded term 'Region', the question "Whose Regions?" is a central and ongoing theme for Devolve! It spans some linked issues - or tensions - of regional devolution.

First the tension between, on the one hand, top-down regionalisation by the centre in the interests of administrative efficiency, policy implementation, contingency planning, 'modernisation' or 'reform' of local government... and on the other hand regionalism from below as an attempt to reclaim power from the centre, to address 'local' needs and problems effectively, to nurture the identity and traditions of an area - or any combination of these.

Second, the tension between different criteria for defining the heartlands and boundaries of an area: administrative, economic, ecological, historical, cultural, or simply 'local' identity and sense of community, of being an 'us'.

"... many of the signatories [to the Cornish petition for regional autonomy] were English tourists in ice cream queues. " - propaganda statement by the competing South West Constitutional Convention

Third, the tension between small groups of people aiming (and claiming) to represent much wider passive, half unconscious, identities and values; combining this with often radical (sometimes hyperbolic) social visions ... and equally small groups of people working to create identification with, and support for, the 'regions' defined by the centre, while accepting in varying degrees the 'terms and conditions' of limited power: in other words working pragmatically to advance regionalism within the political/social machine.

THE WHOSE REGIONS? DIALOGUE

Against this background of tension, of conflicting visions and agendas, Devolve! had attempted to encourage both questioning and dialogue. Our first "Whose Regions?" Conference was held in Birmingham in June 1998, the second in Launceston (close to what some regard as the English - Cornish border) in June 2000. The third conference took place in Southampton in March 2003. This led to the formation of The Commission on The South, which was to become The Commission on Devolution. An exploration of the logic and motives behind the proposed official regions can be found on the next page.

NEW INFLUENCES

A number of factors are now influencing our attitude to territorial devolution: they also invite consideration of a new integrated approach to all forms of devolution in the years ahead. These can be roughly divided into two groups.

EXTERNAL INFLUENCES

-  from events and from allies

•   The decisive rejection of Westminster proposals for a North East region probably means that no central administration will have any appetite for directly elected regions for a generation.
  
  
•   The strategies of the anti-regional campaigners over several years have discredited the label 'region' by association with (a) bureaucracy, (b) expense, (c) the political classes and (d) Europe.
  
  
•   New arguments coming out of the Commission on Devolution for the merits of Functional Sub Regions (FSRs) with pragmatic objectives very different to the 'big visions' of traditional 'regional' movements (in reality autonomy movements).
  
  
•   Recognition that these FSRs are already partially established (in some areas) - not as approved and elected tiers of government but as confederates of local authorites and other bodies (as CFSRs)
  
  
•   Further ideas being explored in the Commission on Devolution (this time involving leverage on Westminster) for a Bill to enable existing local authoritiesto make a case to 'draw down' additional powers.

IDEAS INFLUENCES

-  from history, from internal discussions and from the theoretical work of our sub groups

•   Growing awareness that the ambitious grass roots 'regional' movements are in fact claims for distinct cultural identities within England - and have the primary task of uncovering and fostering that sense of identity.
  
  
•   Increasing recognition that the Devolve! campaign for power and responsibility to be devolved from the centre stands in a long pluralist tradition of opposition to the state-centralist or Jacobin worldview.
  
  
•   Learning from the pluralist heritage that networks, associations and small groups, rather than 'free' individuals, are the stuff that human society is made of. Further, that civil society is properly the sum total of all these linked and confederated associations.
  
  
•   New thinking on Organic Democracy in small groups that recognises complementary roles rather than 'equality' as the dynamic ingredient.
  
  
•   Exploration of the implications of new informational/economic tools for local and particular autonomies: economic pluralism.

THE COMMISSION ON DEVOLUTION

The Commission has taken account of the various tensions between devolution options in its developing strategy. The Functional Sub Region formed from collaborating local authorities that the Commission now advocates is consistent with some local initiatives as exemplified by ACTVaR in the Thames Valley. The FSR model can be seen to complement the City Region case, which is not appropriate for many parts of England. The Commission advocated additional powers being devolved to local authorities that colaborated at the Sub Regional level. The Commission is also exploring issues of identity at thisl level.

AFTER REGIONS?

In January 2005 Devolve! launched"After Regions?" - proposals for a twin-track approach to Territorial Devolution that is solidly based on the integrated strategy across our four tenets. [See above for some influences/inputs.]

The release was accompanied by attempted dialogue around the proposals with movements for Territorial Devolution centred upon both pragmatic and visionary standpoints. The tension between these approaches has been noted elsewhere. One aim of the new proposals was to encourage such projects to view each other as complementary rather than competitive.

THE SIX GAMES IN TOWN

A circulated paper for the 'BEYOND CITY REGIONS' Conference in Oxford, 12th October 2006

MEMO TO INTERESTED PARTIES

If devolving power from Westminster/Whitehall is one of your concerns or forms part of your area of study, then you may find this description of the 'six games in town' useful.

1. The original 'Prescott' plan to give the official (i.e. administrative) regions of England directly elected assemblies plus (limited) powers, budgets and responsibilities.

Comment: Still has supporters among the politically active and some academics despite the North East referendum result and waning Government interest.

2. The uncompromising anti-devolution position held by 'British' patriots such as the United Kingdom Independence Party and, more discreetly, by sections within the major parties and the Whitehall establishment.

Comment: The effect of simple messages such as "all Regions are a Brussels plot" on public opinion can hardly be overstated: they helped to make the 'R' word something not to be mentioned in many circles. Yet in the medium term the instinct to retain control among some politicians and bureaucrats may prove the greater problem.

3. The initiative by some of the major cities to form City Regions in partnership with adjacent local authorities, bidding for more devolved powers in return for structural reform (e.g. elected mayors) and economic growth potential.

Comment: For the proposed City Regions identified in the treasury led Northern Way the linkage between enhanced powers, economic uplift and tax revenues was almost explicit. For the longer established and autonomous Core Cities the original case for more powers was based on keeping up with their European equivalents: they are now putting their case to be the drivers of City Regions that will deliver additional economic output. (N.B. some Cities - e.g. Leeds, Manchester - are in both groupings.)

4. Further development of (unelected) regions, with a wider remit for (Regional) Government Offices and Regional Development Agencies - without relinquishing ultimate central control.

Comment: Although now sympathetic to the evolution of collaboration between local authorities into 'sub-regional' networks [see below] with a hint of additional powers, its main thrust is a strengthening of the regional dimension - with no reference to a debate on regional boundaries. The question of (lack of) accountability is taken up in two ways: greater parliamentary scrutiny and local authority federations possibly empowered to scrutinise Regional Development Agencies (but not the far more powerful Government Offices of The Regions).

5. A commitment to the traditional provinces of England: based in history, the feel of the land, culture and identity.

Comment: A vision actively pursued by small, under-resourced groups of advocates, yet arguably touching a chord in many of us. It is from this perspective that the distinctive nature of the Cornish peninsular is most evident - and it is here that culture and identity meshes most closely with mainstream arguments for devolved powers [see below].

6. Emerging 'sideways' partnerships of local authorities in various parts of England and in Cornwall, beginning to make the case for 'drawing down' additional powers from Westminster while discovering their own strengths and identities.

Comment: The Local Government Association has developed this notion of appropriate self-evolving partnerships and networks as Differential Devolution, while the Commission on Devolution refers to the Functional Sub Region as especially appropriate to areas without Core City hubs and where wider 'Regional' identity is presently weak. Devolve! supports this thinking in principle while arguing that to make real progress towards shaping their destiny, local authorities need to bring their base communities on board through Very Local Democracy, Very Local Economics (VLE) and other means.

LOOKING FORWARD

It can be argued that academics in the field, as much as local authority members and officers, have a responsibility to rebalance the devolution debate. See 'Territorial Devolution' page.

We would argue that the contributions from the Commission on Devolution, including two written submissions to departmental Select Committees plus the debates around 'Beyond City Regions' conference have helped to shape the more recent Westminster endorsement of Functional Sub Regions. They have proved to be the best game in town.