Expansionist Party of the United States ("XP")
295 Smith Street
Newark, NJ 07106
We present below comments on the presentation, "One Plan for the Boundaries of Six British States". If you'd like to add to this discussion, please direct comments to the Expansionist Party ("XP") at XPUS@aol.com with the subject line "Comments for Discussion Page". Because some comments refer to earlier comments, newer remarks appear below older. The latest comment was added April 24, 2007.
SKIP to January 8, 2007; November 23, 2005.
GEORGE Carty wrote:
>>In my plan, 3 of the 4 English states are named after Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, but as there seemed to be no such kingdom encompassing the south-east of England, I decided to call this state 'Londonia' reflecting the fact that this area is essentially London's sphere of influence, with many people living here commuting to work in London.<<
The kingdoms were Kent, Sussex, Essex and East Anglia. Kent extended to the borders of the county, Sussex would include Surrey, Essex would include London, and East Anglia is Norfolk, Suffolk and eastern Cambridgeshire.
May I suggest that the western part of Londonia be merged into Wessex, as this would even out Congress votes, and reflect the more separate identities of these counties (Hampshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire) as the "South" rather than the "South-East".
Historically, Sussex, Kent, Hampshire, Surrey and Berkshire would be merged into Wessex, and the other counties of Londonia, plus Gloucestershire, would be merged into Mercia.
>>I would also want to know what you think of my suggestions for state capitals indicated with square city symbols on the map (and if they are unsatisfactory, could you suggest alternatives?)<<
Possibly York for Northumbria. If my suggestions above were taken into account then Winchester (in Hampshire) would be historically suitable for Wessex, and would fit the American principle of a smaller city becoming State Capital.
I have a (probably irrational) dislike for the name "Londonia" as it sounds too contrived, but I cannot think of any better name.
P.A., Oxford, England
THE FACT that George has to go back a thousand years or so to ancient kingdoms to get any historical rationale for how to split up England shows its absurdity. The scheme then ignores the more recent 450 years during which English political life has been based on a central Parliament (Westminster). Why is it assumed that Wales is sacrosanct as one state but England is to be hung, drawn and quartered?
England should stay as one in my view the only expendable part might be the most northern counties who might choose to go with Scotland. Conceivably Cornwall and Devon might also wish to go with Wales as part of a western celtic fringe, but I doubt it. As far as Senate seats go the only argument for splitting England up that I can see might this not be an opportunity for the 2 seats for all rule to be modified, as least for extreme cases such as California, England etc. whilst still keeping a healthly bias towards the smaller States to protect them ? If the Americans say that would be too difficult to sell in the US, just think what you are asking of England and the UK.
Keeping England together would also retain Westminster as the capital of the most significant part of what it rules now, albeit as a State legislature. We probably would not want a Governor either but retain State Government on the Parliamentary model. Again, I do not see why the US would have to be prescriptive about that. [XP in fact does NOT insist that new states to be created from areas that now have a parliamentary form of government change to a U.S.-style government with separate Governor and legislature. The U.S. Constitution requires only that a state have "a republican form of government", and a parliamentary democracy, absent a figurehead monarch, certainly qualifies as such.]
As far as the boundaries are concerned if you did break England up, then I agree more with George's original plan. It would be absurd to cut Kent and Berkshire off from London or to link London with the Midlands heartland but not with all of the South East. This obsession with pre-1974 county boundaries is also very diverting. Many areas are now metropolitan unitary authorities and not in counties at all. You will have enough battles without uprooting all that argument again. Just call the present county or unitary metropolitan boroughs "counties" for federal purposes and leave it at that. Also they cannot be set for all time these things are matters of local government convenience and must be dynamic (that's not to say I agree with all the changes in the last 30 years but it is really irrelevant to your main purpose). At least sanity prevails in the remarks from XPUS that local usages would continue and we wouldn't have to call it "Kent County" etc. You will have to talk about a merger by consent here you know not talking as if people are setting out to create a new Roman Empire!
Incidentally rather than Londonia why not just call it the State of London, as in State of New York.
C.P., London, England
ENGLAND would never be accepted as a single State of the Union. In the 'winner takes all' US Electoral College, the present most heavily populated state California, with 54 votes has enormous power. A State of England would have over 80 votes!
For a united England to be acceptable, reform of the Electoral College (proportional representation) would be required.
George J. Carty, Durham, England
WHILST I would prefer all of England to be kept together, if it were felt that that would distort things too much, a possible compromise might just be to divide England into only two States Northern or perhaps Central England and Southern England. Neither of these would be markedly bigger that the present largest State. If you were to do that I would take for Southern England your proposed Wessex and Londonia but would add Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk the division would then approximate to the traditional "Bristol Channel to the Wash" divide. In that case I would make London and Manchester the two State capitals. The UK has not shared the custom of the new world in having smaller cities as capitals and Manchester, like London, has the advantage of already being internationally known.
C.P., London, England
WHAT would you call these two states, just "England" with "Northern" (or "Central") and "Southern" before? The U.S. has a couple of "North" and "South"s already (Dakota and Carolina) and one "West" (Virginia). Not very stirring. North Dakota is even thinking of dropping the "North" and terming itself just "Dakota". I don't know how South Dakota, which is more populous and better known, would enjoy seeming a mere appendage to (North) Dakota. Perhaps it would have to change its name too. And if the northern of two English states were termed "Central", wouldn't people wonder where Northern England is? Would you join it to Scotland?
L. Craig Schoonmaker, Chairman, XP, Newark, New Jersey
"SOUTHERN England" fits well for the area proposed there. One would want to keep the name "England" somewhere and Southern England is a term/description already in use. The problem with "Northern England" for the other state is that it includes most of what is called the Midlands and it's stretching it somewhat to call somewhere like Rutland "northern". Scotland would probably wish to take the opportunity to be a self-contained State with its original national boundaries. I don't have an absolute answer as to what to call the other English State but possible solutions might be "Central Britain" or "England (or English) Heartlands". The latter is less totally mundane, although the advantage of the former is that "Britain" has fewer cultural/racial undertones than "England", which might suit many of the Midlands and northern cities which have large non-English populations (principally British people of Asian and West Indian origin). Although London is also very multi-racial, this is much less the case in the rest of southern England.
C.P., London, England
FOR my part, "there will always be an England" but it might be as a regional designation, like "the South" or "Northwest" in the U.S. today, or "Canada" in the future. It might not need to be entrenched in a state name. By comparison, Britons seem to know what "East Anglia" is / was, even tho I see no reference to it in my atlas.
L. Craig Schoonmaker, Chairman, XP, Newark, New Jersey
>>May I suggest that the western part of Londonia be merged into Wessex, as this would even out Congress votes, and reflect the more separate identities of these counties (Hampshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire) as the "South" rather than the "South-East".<<
Yes, this would help even out the House of Representatives a bit (it would subtract 5 votes from Londonia, and add them to Wessex). However, to me it seems geographically unsound as Wessex would now extend right up to Greater London itself (via Berkshire).
>>[As for state capitals,] Possibly York for Northumbria. If my suggestions above were taken into account then Winchester (in Hampshire) would be historically suitable for Wessex, and would fit the American principle of a smaller city becoming State Capital.<<
If Middlesbrough had been a city, it would probably have been my choice for Northumbria's state capital. I wasn't sure whether York would have been suitable I may have a stereotypical view of it as a historic tourist attraction, rather than a 'functional' city. However York does have a good location.
Cities such as Leeds or Manchester are too far south IMO.
I was aware that US states do tend to have their largest city as state capital this was the rationale for choosing Leicester as Mercia's capital, rather than Birmingham (Leicester is also more central).
Also, what is your opinion on my frequent use of traditional, rather than post-1974, county boundaries?
One problem with using traditional boundaries which I found was that I had to put Cheshire in Northumbria. Putting it in Mercia would have been better geographically, but it would have meant that the Greater Manchester conurbation would have been split by a state line.
George J. Carty, Durham, England
ACTUALLY, it is more typical that the state capital is NOT the largest city. Just look at six of the largest states. Here, state name is first, largest city is in BLOCK CAPS, and capital is in Initial Caps: California, LOS ANGELES, Sacramento; Texas, HOUSTON, Austin; New York, NEW YORK, Albany; Florida, MIAMI (or TAMPA, I haven't seen the 2000 census result), Tallahassee; Illinois, CHICAGO, Springfield.
L. Craig Schoonmaker, Chairman, XP, Newark, New Jersey
[RESPONSIVE to George Carty's remarks:]
>>Also, what is your opinion on my frequent use of traditional, rather than post-1974, county boundaries?
>>One problem with using traditional boundaries which I found was that I had to put Cheshire in Northumbria. Putting it in Mercia would have been better geographically, but it would have meant that the Greater Manchester conurbation would have been split by a state line.<<
It seems like a good idea: you get rid of some of the bizarre counties and boundary alterations from 1974. You also get rid of the confusion of unitary authorities and non-county boroughs etc. created since 1996, which unnecessarily complicate things.
The Metropolitan counties do present a difficulty, as the larger cites tend to have that uncanny ability to lie exactly on pre-1974 county borders. For Cheshire I feel that it is more important to put conurbations in single states, than to be necessarily geographically even: particularly as Manchester would actually be almost cut down the middle by the state border.
An idea might be to use the pre-1974 counties plus the metropolitan areas (London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds/Bradford & Newcastle-u-Tyne), though I'm not sure how popular this would be in these areas, particularly in Yorkshire (Leeds/Bradford and Sheffield).
P.A., Oxford, England
[AS FOR the observation:]
>>The Metropolitan counties do present a difficulty, as the larger cities tend to have that uncanny ability to lie exactly on pre-1974 county borders.<<
It's not that surprising, considering that many major cities lie on rivers, which often formed the pre-1974 boundaries.
George J. Carty, Durham, England
FIRSTLY, can I say that there is a different and I believe still more popular argument for the UK joining the European Union and not the USA, if indeed it must join anything.
The Midlands: The capital should NOT be Leicester - it has NEVER been a centre for Mercia. The ancient capital had been Tamworth but nowadays Birmingham would culturally demand it. Birmingham is the cultural heart of modern Mercia and also the centre of midlandspeak "brummie", "yammie" and "black country" dialects. For the English, Mercia and the midlands means Birmingham. I suspect your real reasons for ruling out Birmingham are because of Birmingham, Alabama!
The North: suggestions by one of your commentators that the northern county of Northumberland join Scotland are risible it shows no understanding of Scottish and English identities. The people of Newcastle, while sounding to the untrained ear sort of Scottish are most definately not Scots and would riot at the prospect. The Cumbrians historically were for a long while part of celtic west Scotland and actually 'welsh' and not part of England, however the Cumbrians are now very much extinct and the folk who live there now are quite English. Also the choice of Newcastle as capital is debatable. The trouble is York is the proper capital, the historic capital, while Manchester is the cultural and demographic capital. There is a great deal of rivalry between Yorkshire and Lancashire(manchester) people. I think the centre should be York mainly because the historic arguments are too strong and the Archbishop of York has his seat there. It is the traditional capital of the north.
b) The East: to my total dismay you have included the historic easterly realm of East Anglia in the middle entity you call Mercia. The folk of East Anglia are very much different to those of the midlands i.e. Mercia. Although they are fewer in number, I believe a big East Anglia which included its historic sphere (Cambridgeshire & Huntingdonshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk) with the capital at Norwich would be feasable. The East Angles are a people of the flat lands, of agriculture not industry speaking a dialect quite similar to that of the West Country (Wessex). Also, historically speaking they had an independence that lasted at least 400 years and a line of their own powerful kings. The inclusion of East Anglia with Mercia would be totally unacceptable to the people of East Anglia, of this I am absolutely sure.
c) On balance I agree with your borders and capital of 'Wessex'. It has already been noted that the capital of Wessex according to your map is now in 'Londonia', but there were other old capitals of Wessex other than Winchester, including Sherbourne. It is worth noting that Wessex was an English kingdom that grew westwards from Hampshire invading the celtic Kingdom of Dumnonia. The more west you go, the less English people feel. There would be violent opposition from the celtic Cornish to being included in Wessex Kernow was subdued by Wessex in the early 10th Century, but retained its autonomy - I would propose Cornwall actually became part of Wales, strange as it may sound, but the place was called "West Wales" on all maps until about the 18th Century and this would placate the very strong Celtic identity of the ethnic Cornish minority of Cornwall.
d) Cheshire was historically part of Mercia however the people of Cheshire consider themselves 'northern' and would demand to be part of a northern region or state.
e) I would recommend that 'Londonia' was called "London and the Home Counties". A 'Home County' is one which borders London, but in general usage it refers to the South East.
James Frankcom, Godalming, Surrey
Chairman Schoonmaker responds: THE present Birmingham in the United States is not the capital of its state, Alabama. Montgomery has that distinction. In the Alabama Birmingham, the HAM is pronounced just like the meat. There are many, many names in the U.S. derived from Britain, including perhaps the name of my own city (tho there are other possible origins of that name).
I readily concede that I have no idea what you're talking about in most of the geographic particulars, since I live in the United States, and English geography is not taught here (which makes studying Shakespeare and British history pretty vague sometimes). All the proposed boundaries and map were created by George J. Carty of Durham, England.
Whatever the people of Britain want, I'd be happy with, as long as there aren't too many votes in play for any one state in the electoral college vote for President.
November 2005: Why should England be split up into four or even two states, after all England's population is roughly equivalent to that of California.
And if England were forced to divide into multiple states then all the other populous states such as California and Texas should be required to split up as well in order to preserve the balance.
Except that neither the Texans nor the Californians would be too agreeable to that idea would they, after all why should they be penalised like that simply because they have more people living in them than their neighbouring states.
And the English will not be happy when they learn of this proposal, just because their are many more of us than the Scottish or the Welsh doesn't mean we should have to pay for it by giving up the intergrity of our nation, nor should the Northern Irish be simply handed over to Eire if it is against their wishes.
Additionally devolution has more than granted the Welsh and the Scottish independence from Westminster.
England should be kept whole.
Chairman Schoonmaker responds: England's population is about 50 million; California's, 37 million. That's a huge difference, electorally speaking. There have in fact been proposals that California be divided into two separate states, Northern and Southern, but any such division would, constitutionally, have to be approved by Congress, since it would affect representation in the Senate. Texas has the right, under the terms of the treaty of annexation, to divide itself into as many as five states, but has valued its territorial integrity too highly to exchange its unity for greater Senatorial representation. England may feel the same way, and choose to do without the higher representation it could get as multiple states rather than one.
XP's suggestion that Britain be admitted as multiple states was made more to benefit Britain than to promote geographical and political balance in the Senate, tho both of those latter considerations are important. Congress might not require Britain, or England, to break up into multiple states, but there would doubtless be debate as to whether a single state of 50 million (or even 60 million!) is too dangerous in the electoral college to be admitted without apportionment of its electoral vote. If England were adamant about retaining its territorial integrity and not apportioning its electoral vote, in order to give it outsize clout in the selection of the President, Congress could simply refuse England admission to the Union, which we'd rather Congress not do.
As for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, since England has granted devolution to the first two, separate statehood for them should not be objectionable to the English. As regards Northern Ireland, there is essentially no chance that Congress would admit a gerrymandered, sectarian-torn Northern Ireland as a state to itself, so it would have to be merged into something else if not the remainder of Ireland as another new state, then Scotland, England, or Wales or be excluded from the Union altogether, which would present an anomaly that no one would be happy with.
It would be unfortunate if an insistence on England's territorial unity were to produce a logjam in Congress whereby the House of Representatives, with full representation of Britain's population, passes a bill by a resounding majority only to have it rejected by the Senate because Britain is underrepresented in that chamber. Surely that would be in no one's interest.
The original proposal was for 4 states to be created from England, which would give England 8 Senators. Three of those 4 states would be among the 10 largest states of the United States, and England's 50 million population would have the clout of 1/6 of the combined Nation's representation in the House of Representatives. If the Senate were expanded by 12 seats, 2 for each of 6 states (Wales, Scotland, and 4 states from England), Britain would have 12 of 112 seats in the Senate, 1/9 of the total; 4 states from England would have 8 votes, 1/14 the total. So already both Britain and England more particularly would be somewhat underrepresented in the Senate. What largely makes up for that is that large states have more clout in the Electoral College vote for President, where, traditionally, the entire electoral vote of a given state (the number of Representatives plus 2 Senators) goes to one candidate, whoever wins that state's popular vote by even one individual's vote.
However, if England were a single state, it would have only 2 votes in the Senate. With Scotland and Wales's 2 each, Britain would have only 6 votes of 106, 1/18 the total! England as a single state would have only 1/53 the total! Not a good deal, because the Nation votes for President only once every four years (invariable), but the Senate takes votes a great many times a year. And would the people of England really like having no more representation in the Senate than Scotland or Wales?
As for the Nation, if the electoral votes of 50 million residents (perhaps 30 million voters) hinged on a tiny win in one state (say, for argument's sake, 1 person!), we could have a massively unfair result in the Electoral College: a candidate who lost the popular vote elsewhere, by as much as 28 million votes, could be elected President! Think back to the bitterness when, in 2000, Gore won the popular vote by half a million votes but lost the presidency in the Electoral College.
It would thus be hard for Congress to justify admitting any one state of such size unless it apportioned its electoral vote by its internal popular vote. If we had a bunch of such huge states (e.g., the various states of India), one might balance out another. But a single electoral unit of 50 million residents could not be balanced even by California, which is not expected to reach that size for perhaps 25 years.
The problem with apportioning the electoral vote as it has been done in existing states is that such apportionment is a state law, not federal, so could be revised by the state legislature at any time after admission. Unless the treaty of annexation required, as a condition of admission, that a unified England apportion its electoral vote, England could present itself for statehood with a promise to enact a law apportioning the vote but after admission either not follow thru to pass the promised legislation, or pass it one year and rescind it somewhere down the line.
Treaty provisions, however, can be made to survive the effective date of statehood, and would supersede state law. So if the United Kingdom binds its successors, the states of England, Scotland, and Wales, to certain promises in a treaty of annexation, those provisions will bind the resulting states. Problem solved. England could remain united if it were willing to lose 6 votes in the U.S. Senate. But that would seem to me to be most unwise.
Mr. Wood responds: While true that dividing England into four states would provide eight senators between them, they would be four different states with different interests, and England would have ceased to exist at the moment of annexation.
If on the other hand England were admitted as only one state with only two senators, then it would be an acceptable idea because England would still exist.
As to your concerns over how this would affect the electoral college, all I can say to allay your concerns is that:
1) amongst the greatest problems with first past the post systems such as our constituency-based legislature and your electoral college is that since they work on the basis of seats or states it is possible that candidates with less votes can win elections, such as in 1951 in Britain and 2000 in the United States.
2) Given the differences between the Conservatives and the Labour party, England's representatives would be split along Democrat and Republican lines, providing a balance.
3) Due to decreasing levels of turnout at British elections you probably wouldn't have to worry about candidates with the least votes winning elections.
* * *
With regards to your reply to my comments, the idea of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland being separate from England is not objectionable where the English people are concerned; what I am objecting to is that they are allowed to remain as integrated territories while England, one of the oldest nation-states in the world, is carved up piecemeal.
Although it is true that in England there has been animosity between North and South, we still view ourselves through a collective English identity, and would be unwilling to give this up simply for the sake of providing balance in the electoral college.
Nor would multiple English states benefit the English people since our interests would as with those of other sparsely populated states, find themselves subordinated to those of larger states.
At present this is one of the problems Britain has to deal with in Europe, and the English people have no desire to have to repeat the experiences of small EU nations which are simply pushed around by some of the larger member-states.
Chairman Schoonmaker responds: Four states from England would not be "sparsely populated" as compared to other U.S. states. We're not talking about a France or Germany here, with 63 million or 83 million people in a single state. The largest State of the Union is California, with only 37 million today. If the English really are as unified in viewpoint as you suggest, then they would have four times the impact on national elections and day-to-day horsetrading in Congress as four states that they would have as only one state.
* * *
January 2007: First of all, It does make quite a lot of sense for the UK to join (back) with the USA.
The US is like England's (and later Britain's) Child. Like all children and parents they fall out and argue sometimes, but as the child matures and gets older they realise the value of their parents. The Parents learn to let the child break free and learn about life and eventually come to terms with their "Independence". But we are all ONE family with a common history. So why not?
Secondly, splitting the UK to provide more states.
Well in principle I could agree. But NOT with the boundaries you propose. It could only be done by using the Heptarchy. I also mean that Scotland would also need to go back to this period with a Scotland, Pictland, and Strathclyde. Edinburgh then joining back with Northumbria. The only Anglo-Saxons not to have joined with England.
Cornwall would also need to be separate to make it fair.
It seems to be open season yet again on the English: split us up but not anyone else. We either go back to the Heptarchy with Strathclyde, Scotland (Dal Raida) and Pictland or stick to the 4 Nations.
I find it Extremely offensive to Create a name of Londonia. (which would be pronounced "Lun-DOE-nee-ya"). Why would it be pronounced that? The pronouncement of London is Lunden or Lundin. After the Lundein tribe that lived here during the Roman period. The spellings change but the pronunciation lives on.
Surely since this area encompasses the lands of Middlesex, Essex and Sussex a more SAXON name could have been proposed. Saxonia? No, I still find it offensive. It is assumed that we have no national identity or culture. It is also assumed that we have no regional identity. I class myself as Anglo-Saxon and an Essexman. I do not want to live in Londonia.
Also other comments on the boundaries. Mercia taking over East Anglia? No No No. The map is just so wrong it can never be taken seriously. If this was proposed I would be against it.
Chairman Schoonmaker replies: The boundaries proposed are starting points for discussion, and whatever the people of Britain decide before applying for statehood is what Congress would have to accept or reject. Americans know far too little about British geography to redraw the map on their own. What Britons on their own decide must, however, accord with American conceptions of fairness and good sense. It would be silly and infuriating if we were to agree in principle that uniting is in our common interest but fail to unite because of a few mapping issues. I am confident that people of good will can propose sensible units with sensible boundaries we can agree on. Unanimity among millions upon millions of people is not to be expected, but good will and the spirit of compromise without which no democracy can work will win the day.
* * *
April 2007: Re: 6 British States: I understand the sentiment, but this is an unworkable solution. Wales and Scotland could happily be annexed as individual states, but breaking up England is problematic. There are really three options for England.
1. Accept the State of England
With 50 million it's instantly the largest state in the Union. While it has only 2 Senators, in the [House of] Representatives it would get about 15% of the allotment (65, with these places coming from the US, since the number of Representatives is set at 435), England would thus have 67 Electoral College Votes, Wales 6 (2 from the Senate and 4 in the Representatives), Scotland 8 (2 from the Senate and 6 from the Representatives), while a United Ireland would have 9 (2 from the Senate and 7 from the Representatives).
[Editor's Note: Altho it has been the practice since 1912 to increase the number of Representatives in the House only temporarily for each new State and then return the size of the House to 435 after the next decennial census, that is a simple legislative practice, not a provision of the Constitution, so the House could simply be permanently enlarged by the number of Representatives added for new States.]
Thus 90 Electoral College votes from the British Isles, out of 543, or pretty much exactly 1/6th of the Votes.
[Editor's Note: The British Isles have a bit more than 1/5th the population of the present U.S. Added into the U.S., then, they would comprise 1/6th the combined population. See specific figures below.]
2. Accept each major county as a State.
While some modern counties could easily be merged (Greater Manchester and Merseyside back into Lancashire for example, Hereford and Worcester, as in 1974 etc.) we'd still have 37 counties (note, I include Monmouthshire in Wales). This would give England about 70 seats in the [House of] Representatives, and 74 Senators, giving them 144 Electors. The British Isles would have 27% of the Electors.
[Editor's Note: Not going to happen. When the 300 million people in the older states have only 100 Senators, they are not about to give England 74 Senators and the remainder of the British Isles another 6, for a total of 80 Senators from the British Isles against 100 for the entire remainder of the Nation. That is just flat-out not going to happen. That suggestion is, in the parlance of American politics, a non-starter.]
3. Subdivide England into Ten States
Ten being a convenient number to put similar counties together, and also relating to the average size of a US State.
These States [with their number of Electors following] would be:
London (7.52m, 33 counties) - 12
Wessex (5.8m, 46 counties) - inc. Hampshire and IoW - 9
Cornwall (2.51m, 23 counties) - Cornwall, Devon and Somerset - 5
Home Counties (5.86m, 51 counties) - 9
Lancaster (6.85m, 43 counties) - Lancs, Cheshire and Cumbria - 11
Yorkshire (5.03m, 22 counties) - 8
West Mercia (5.37m, 34 counties) - 9
East Mercia (2.33m, 19 counties) - Beds, Herts and Bucks - 5
Northumbria (2.28m, 21 counties) - 5
Middle Anglia (4.62m, 46 counties) - 8
East Anglia (2.26m, 20 counties) - inc. Cam - 5
[Editor's Note: That's actually 11 states. Something's off.]
Total English Electors: 86
Total British Isles Electors 109 (out of 561 = 19%)
[Editor's Note: "Total British Isles" includes all of Ireland, not just Northern Ireland. So the population of the British Isles accessions would be about 64 million; added to 300 million in the present States would yield a total national population of 364 million. 64 million would thus represent about 18% of the total.]
Counties are the Districts etc. which are the English equivalents to counties in US States
* * *
Editor's Note: I chanced across another discussion about this proposal on a website that is not in any way affiliated with the Expansionist Party: http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2006/11/14/32-britain-usa/.
Do you have comments to add? If so, please send email to XPUS@aol.com with the subject line "Comments for Discussion Page" and provide your name, city, and country for publication.
(Note: We are gradually rebuilding this site. If not all the links below work at present, you can bookmark (Control-D) this page and check back later.)
(This is the end of this area.) [Return to the top of this page.] [Go to "One Plan for Boundaries of Six British States"] [Go to 'Private Action for British-U.S. Union" page.] [Go to "Whither Britain?" page.] [Go to related item, extending U.S. citizenship to nationals of highly similar countries, starting with Canada and maybe Britain?] [Go to Expansionist Party home page.] [Go to XP's subject indexes to see all the areas we address.]