The United Kingdom is one of the most centralised nations in the developed world. Our politics, economy, culture, media and tourism are overwhelmingly concentrated in the capital, London. As a result, the rest of the nation is overlooked – on the global stage, and by our own elites. But what if we did something radical? What if we followed the example of Myanmar, Kazakhstan or, most recently, Indonesia, and relocated our capital? We asked various contributors to cast their eyes over the vast swathes of the UK that feel worlds apart from London – and nominate a city to capitalise.
There are lots of reasons a country might need a new capital. Perhaps the old one has been split in two and surrounded by someone else’s territory, as Berlin was, in the Cold War days when little Bonn was the chief city of West Germany. Perhaps you have to make an impossible choice between two rivals who will both be furious if you pick the other – which I believe was the reasoning behind making Canberra capital of Australia. Maybe you just don’t want your enemies to be able to find it, the plausible excuse for Canada’s choice of Ottawa and Burma’s relocation of its government to Naypyidaw.
Or perhaps you fear the mob, as the USA’s founding fathers were said to have done when they shifted their capital from Philadelphia to a swamp on the Potomac, and equipped Washington DC with wide and sweeping avenues which could easily be swept clean of trouble by a whiff of grapeshot. Similar allegations have been made about Astana, the spooky, very spacious and wind-scoured city on the plains of Kazakhstan, safely out of reach of any sort of People Power revolt, because the People would take so long to get there.
But the reason for moving our national capital to Portsmouth would be more subtle. There are plenty of great cities in the United Kingdom that would serve as fine capitals – picturesque and ancient York, full of history; majestic Liverpool with its two cathedrals and its face turned towards the Atlantic; graceful Dunfermline with its ruins, towers and spires and its plentiful memories of kings. It even crossed my mind to suggest Swindon, perhaps the place I know that is most typical of modern England, and where I once spent three very educational formative years.
But after some thought I have settled on battered, warlike Portsmouth with its constant reminder of our seaborne heritage, and its harsh and unpretty edges. In Portsmouth you cannot ever forget, even in the supposedly soft south, that plenty of British people have lives that are far from being easy or affluent. I have settled on it because I love that old and often ugly city in spite of itself, and because I don’t think I know anywhere more concentratedly British, in the way that we used to use the word before devolution got a grip on us.
It is also because our legislators and civil servants would be bound to behave and think differently (and better) if they found themselves in those surroundings. Perhaps foreign diplomats, too, might learn a thing or two about Britain that modern London could never teach them.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe