GIVEN the raw deal the North-East gets from UK governments, could credence be given to a Northumbrian Peoples' Independence Party for the people of Tees to Tweed? After all we were once a kingdom and the Prince Bishops had a great deal of autonomy from London. Does the Scottish and Welsh claim for independence carry any more weight than a Northumbrian claim? - Mark Anderson, Middleton St George.

YOUR opening statement almost answers the question about the weight of the Northumbrian claim for independence. You start by calling our region the North-East and our readers will understand that you mean England's North-East. This in itself demonstrates that while our region's desire for autonomy is strong, Wales and Scotland already have stronger, national identities and were nations in their own right for most of the last millennium.

Of course, English control of Scottish and Welsh affairs varied from century to century, but we have to return to the days before the Norman Conquest to find the Kingdom of Northumbria. It was a kingdom stretching from the Humber and Mersey in the south to Cumbria and Edinburgh in the north.

The part of the kingdom north of the River Tees was actually called Bernicia, but there is a historical basis for calling the North-East Northumbria. In the 9th Century, after the Viking invasions, Northumbria was reduced to an Anglo-Saxon earldom stretching from the Tees to the Tweed (Northumberland and Durham). This remaining rump of Northumbria was no longer a kingdom, but it did enjoy a degree of autonomy, even after the Norman Conquest.

A sense of regionalism, perhaps even nationalism, was felt by these new Northumbrians, who spoke a distinct dialect. There was, for example, a great reverence for Northumbrian saints like Bede and Cuthbert, whose remains lay at Durham. Furthermore, the Anglo-Saxon Earls of Bamburgh, who ruled this region, could trace their line back to the old Northumbrian kings and they had close family ties with the Anglo-Saxon Bishops of Durham.

The autonomy granted to the North-East by William the Conqueror is often attributed to the region's geographical distance from the south and its strategic proximity to Scotland. It was also a recognition of North-Eastern (or Northumbrian) regionalism. William allowed an Anglo-Saxon Earl called Waltheof to rule the region, providing the Earl recognised William's superiority. Waltheof plotted against William and was executed and his powers were handed over to the new Norman Bishop of Durham and here we have the origin of the Prince Bishops.

The political powers of the bishops were however confined to the land between Tyne and Tees - this area became the County Palatine of Durham. The land North of the Tyne came to be known as Northumberland.

This of course may support an emotional desire for regional independence, but we need to consider the situation in a modern context. Is regional independence economically and politically beneficial? Who should rule us and how should they be elected? Where should the seat of government be located? What should the region be called and what should be the extent of our boundaries?

l If you have a Burning Question, or can improve on any of the answers above, please write to Burning Questions, The Northern Echo, Priestgate, Darlington, DL1 1NF or e-mail dsimpsonnen.co.uk.