This is so wrong and old fashioned a view of the country (c1957)it is not worth commenting on, except to say, thatcher and major had no mandate in Scotland and Wales and both areas had essentially a colonial regime. The reason that regionalism is needed in England is because we all commute outside the heritage counties we live in, some things are better delivered on a bigger basis and most importantly, London and the SE economy is out of kilter with the economies of the midlands/the north etc. It should also be noted that the English regions conform roughly to the saxon kingdoms of England rather than the norman french nation that replaced it.
I quite agree, a political rebalancing within England would in turn to an economic rebalancing. The trouble is there is opposition to it.
1. It is perceived as an EU plot to destroy England. Claims are made that England isn't on EU regional maps (a la John of Paddington), but the fact that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc are also not shown on the maps as nations is ignored.
2. Centuries of centralised rule in England, since the Normans, has led to a wariness when it comes giving autonomy out at regional level. England is the first and last part of the British Empire; the first bit to be conquered and the last to receive proper representation. Unfortunately a lot of people cling to the security that this empire gives them and are comfortable with being run as colonies from Westminster. It's more than likely that a lot of politicians are more than happy to go along with this.
3. Sucessive governments like to curry favour with big business, which is concentrated on London and the SE. Attempts to devolve England politically and economically would take business away from London, so real power is never likely to be devolved down from Westminster. In fact the current proposals involve devolving power upwards from the county councils (thus scrapping them) to large assemblies nearer on the political spectrum to London, but without the power to challenge Westminster.