London matches the glory of Venice in its prime

Ross Clark says that our capital has the geographical, economic and social conditions that made the Venetian city-state of the 14th century — but all this is vulnerable

When Tony Blair secured the agreement of the Scots and — only just — the Welsh for devolution in the referendums of 1998, it was supposed to herald a great revival of the regions. Britain was to be reborn as a kind of West Germany, whose constitution included a reference to ironing out the economic disparities between Hamburg and Munich, Frankfurt and Hanover. Instead, the opposite seems to have occurred. The concept of elected English regional assemblies has been quietly forgotten since rejection in the North East, and wealth and power have been concentrated increasingly in London — to the point where the average Londoner now earns £37,323 per year, 53 per cent more than average British earnings. Indeed, the part of England that now seems most inclined towards independence is the capital itself.

Intriguingly, the notion that London could hack it as a city-state has been entertained at both ends of the political spectrum. For economic liberals independence is a way of freeing London from the burden of its

£20 billion annual subsidy to the rest of the country. The Mayor himself, Ken Livingstone, seems to like the idea of a London city-state, too. Returning from a visit to the Far East he declared last year: ‘Having been to Singapore and seen how successful it was, I think anything short of a fully independent city-state is a lost opportunity.’

If Mr Livingstone wishes to pursue the idea, he might find a better model for a London city-state in 14th-century Venice. Unlike Singapore, which is wealthy, grimly efficient but hardly a place of fun or great creative energy, London shares with Venice in its heyday a growing reputation, not as the most powerful city in the world, but as its best address.