Introduction: The North-South Divide
The English North/South divide is a long-standing and almost folkloric phenomenon that has permeated English social and political life since before the industrial revolution, with these differences becoming ever more crystallized over time, and cemented under Thatcherism in the 1980s. The difference is not all about class politics or party affiliation, however. Affluent suburban districts in the North, such as The Wirral in Merseyside and Trafford in Greater Manchester, have Labour MPs, whereas impoverished seaside downs on the south and east coast, such as in Thanet, have Tory MPs. Indeed, though political parties do come into it, there are wider cultural themes at play.
In recent years the ‘British Culture War’, driven in large parts by the Brexit debate, has come to dominate the way certain aspects of the North have been covered in the media. And though traditionally the North/South divide has featured a Labour-voting North and a Tory-voting South, a realignment has occurred, with the Tory’s 2019 Election Campaign explicitly targeting “Workington Man”; more broadly, socially-conservative, Leave-voting men in post-industrial Northern Towns; while at the same time seeming to abandon their more socially-liberal, Remain-voting base in parts of the South, such as Cambridge, Kensington, and Canterbury.
This strategy paid off in historic fashion for Boris Johnson, seeing him win an 80 seat majority. But as certain elements in the North became more Tory-friendly, the ‘other’ working–class, in the form of multi-ethnic city neighbourhoods in London and other major cities, became more Labour dominated. Even during a period where political allegiances were in flux, the North and South of England behaved in notably different ways.
The current rise of northern independence sentiment, as exemplified by the formation of a new Party, as well as signifiers in media discourse (as I will discuss later), is a symptom of a political system that refuses to change. Movements like this are arguably demonstrative of people running out of ideas for how to escape a longstanding, rigid, and tiresome English rule. Much like in Scotland, the North of England does not generally feel included or attached to the tradition of being ruled by upper-class men from Eton, or share in the jingoistic exceptionalism of the British Empire.
Existing Devolution: Scotland, Wales, and ‘The Regions’
Given the amount of devolution that has already happened, it is not unreasonable to argue that the project of the United Kingdom is showing signs of winding down, since its conception in 1707. Whether the long-term decentralization of power is evidence of ‘winding-down’ is of course up for debate, but I would argue that in the British context, the motivation behind devolution usually revolves around the idea of ‘escape’.
Indeed, Scottish Nationalists in the 1970s seized on the discovery of large reserves of oil in the North Sea as their chance to escape. As it provided an economic crutch for a newly-independent Scotland to rely on while finding its feat. The resurgence of Scottish independence sentiment in the 1970s has only gained momentum since, with the devolution settlements of the early Blair years allowing autonomous power to return (to an extent) to the people of Scotland and Wales. The story of Sottish independence is its own tale, and deserves to be covered in its own piece, but provides one of the key parallels we can use to analyse what’s happening in England.
Since the devolution settlement saw Scotland and Wales get their own legislatures, other moves have been made by the central government in enact devolution within England, in areas now commonly referred to in BBC-speak as “The Regions”. These regions can generally be split into the North-West, North-East, The Midlands, and even the South-West, leaving only the South-East. Categorizations such as this feed into the notion that the ‘real’ England is London and the surrounding ‘home counties’ (clue is in the name) in the South-East, with every other part of the nation being some kind of appendage or vestigial outer-realm to be ‘reached out to’ and ‘included’.
Even language used by politicians that is intended to be inclusive ends up reiterating the divide between the ruling region of England and the rest. A common catch-all term we hear upon a government minister realising that areas outside the South-East exist is “the nations and regions”, shorthand for everywhere in England outside of the South, as well as Scotland and Wales. This sort of language causes the North particularly to feel like the poor guest hoping for scraps at the dinner party. Why are we cast as separate when discussing Westminster’s plans for the UK, we’re literally in England?
Plans for a North East assembly were also put forward in a referendum, but voted against in 2003, partially because no one really saw the point at that moment in time, but also because the boundaries drawn for this new jurisdiction were based on a poor understanding of the area. The evidence suggests that Yorkshire would prefer its own devolved settlement, as opposed to being lumped in with the whole North East including Newcastle, Leeds, Sunderland, and Hull. In less than 20 years since, there are now strong calls for devolution in Yorkshire. Since 2016, Manchester, Liverpool, and the West Midlands have each gained a Metro-Mayor, acting as de facto leaders of all councils in their greater-city regions, and giving the 2.7 million of Greater Manchester, 2.9 million of the West Midlands, and the 1 million+ people of Greater Liverpool, single, authoritative voices. Voices contrasted against the lone Boris Johnson, the de facto English Leader.
Yorkshire has made attempts at devolution in the past few years, missing out on the chance to have a metro mayor in 2016 because the Westminster Government were not comfortable with the idea of a Mayor of Yorkshire, instead pushing a west and east Yorkshire split.
Where are we now? The effect of COVID-19 on the North-South divide
It is, by now, extremely unoriginal to say that COVID-19 has acted as an ‘accelerating force’, but just as this has been true for things like the death of the high-street, digitalisation, and remote-working, the niche topic of English regional divides is not immune.
The 2020 (and now 2021) pandemic led to the Westminster Parliament becoming more of an English parliament than ever before. This is because the devolved nations of the UK possess autonomy on emergency health crises (who knew?). This has meant that every decision taken by Boris Johnson regarding the pandemic has been scrutinized in contrast to the decisions of the Welsh and Scottish governments. Not ideal if you’re Boris. It’s no surprise that Nicola Sturgeon has done well out of this, with her decade of government experience and leadership skills having made the difference between her and the Prime Minister abundantly clear.
Following the introduction of the Tier system, in which different regions of England were put into categories of severity, the North/South divide once again reared its head. Commentators quickly pointed out that Northern regions were being treated differently to places like London, with high-infection areas in the South under laxer measures than low-risk areas in the North. This could of course be put down to simple government incompetence, but then came the time for Northern Mayors to negotiate economic relief packages with Westminster.
Greater Manchester has been under some form of lockdown for the majority of time since March 2020, as has been necessary to control the spread of the virus. However, after the government’s decision in October 2020 to put Manchester into the then-strictest Tier 3, the antagonistic forces between North and South came into the spotlight.
Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham made the headlines late last year with an aggressive display of solidarity with his constituents. Having initially asked the Government for in excess of £80m, before conceding that £65m would suffice as an absolute minimum, the Westminster Government, currently running a deficit so high that £5m is basically inconsequential, refused. Offering only £60m. Manchester refused, insisting that the extra £5m (about £2 per head for Manchester residents) was in-fact needed. The government then made a show of withdrawing the offer completely for a few days, panicking businesses and councils across the region, before finally handing over the £60m.
By now, the reader will have noticed that a common feature when discussing the North/South divide is the Conservative Party. This is because they have been in control of England and the UK for multiple lifetimes. With their dominance stretching back to the 1700s, the ‘natural party of government’ has had their grip on power broken only four times since Churchill. But why are they so relevant to the North?
Thatcherism and Deindustrialisation
Many Northern areas have a long history of being dominated and forcibly changed by Tory policy, with the party commencing mass deindustrialisation of the region under Margret Thatcher. The closure of coal mines led the towns that existed purely to house coal-miners and their families to become a wasteland, with retraining, reinvestment, and a desperately needed a reconceptualization of these Northern town’s economies completely absent from any Tory plans- plans which started and ended with the closure of major industries, with no regard for the human and societal fallout it would lead to.
To this day towns still known as mining-towns (because they never became anything else) pepper the landscape of the North East of England, and typically make up the most impoverished areas of the UK. Ex-ship-building, ex-colliery, ex-steel-making, these are the places defined by what they were, and no longer are.
The contempt for the trade unions of these industries was laid bare at the time, with the first instance of what one might call ‘modern riot policing’ in the UK taking place at The Battle of Orgreave, a confrontation between unionised miners and the South Yorkshire Police leading to mass injury, wrongful imprisonments, and a souring of relations between Government and heavy industry.
Thatcher’s Conservatives dismantled the industries that provided income for millions of the working class while simultaneously dismantling the welfare state that should have been there to catch them. A classic Tory line is “the best route out of poverty is work”, I would counter that the best route into poverty is having the government close your place of work and replace it with absolutely nothing.
What next?
Far be it from me to become the stereotypical moaning Northerner, bringing up Thatcherism and class-struggles from before I was born, let’s return to the present. Returning to the theme of ‘escaping’ Southern Tory rule, I would argue that the North is moving beyond the part in history where we ask the Westminster government to right historic wrongs, to simply asking for the power and autonomy to fix them ourselves. But what form should this autonomy take?
A scepticism that has hampered regional devolution when it has been suggested, is that it is simply an attempt by the UK government to delegate responsibility to local authorities, thereby delegating the blame also. An example of this was David Cameron’s tendency to blame the failings of the NHS in Wales on the fact Wales had a Labour government, despite the fact he had slashed the Welsh budget, causing Wales to have to cut funds for adult social care to preserve hospitals.
A Fully Independent North?
The notion of a Northern Republic takes the idea of Northern devolution to the extreme, proposing a fully independent North. A clean break from the rest of England, the establishment of a sovereign State. The newly-formed Northern Independence Party (NIP) shares this ambition. They lay out a detailed and convincing argument on their website for the principles and ambitions this new country would be formed on (which can be read at www.freethenorth.co.uk). They take the view that a social-democratic, pro-immigrant, and ecologically sustainable North would underpin the values of the new Nation-State. Which brings us to the final piece of the puzzle, where is the border?
Scotland and Wales are at a huge advantage when it comes to being taken seriously on devolution. The historic borders left over from when they were fully independent Kingdoms still exist, and still function as borders in a very real sense, marking divides between legal and administrative jurisdictions. The historic kingdoms of England do not exist anymore, meaning a rebirth of ancient boundaries is required if the North is ever to achieve real autonomy. Wales and Scotland’s devolved governments are able to deviate from the rest of the UK on things like tax, student Fees, maternity leave, things that need a defined territory to be workable. Without some kind of soft-border, a definitive line on a map, the North will not be able to deviate much beyond the remit of a city council.
The fact is, if the North is to achieve any meaningful autonomy, a border will have to be identified and enshrined in law. Even if the plan is to simply gain the level of independence Wales has, a boarder is essential. The Northern Independence Party wants to draw the line where the historic Kingdom of Northumbria was, as shown on this map.
Using the historic kingdom of Northumbria was the basis, and independent North would stretch from the Scottish Border, right down to the river Humber. It would comprise roughly 15 million people, and have an economy the size of Sweden.
Finally: Is it Nationalism?
Northern identity may have the feel of Nationalism, but is arguably a reaction against nationalism, more specifically, against English Nationalism. Andy Burnham himself is a strong opponent of nationalism, and that is no coincidence. Throughout the major Northern Cities, and many rural areas such as Cumbria and Lancashire, regional identity is arguably more important and more relevant than national identity. With people taking solace in their pride as a Manc, Scoucer, Yorkshireman, Geordie, Lancastrian, Cumbrian, etc. Much in the same way Welsh people put their Welshness above their Britishness, Northerners are likely to resist a London-centric ‘British’ identity by focusing on their regional identity, which is often more relevant to their lives, and more representative of who they are.
The North of England contains some of the most impoverished areas in Northern Europe, despite belonging to the sixth largest economy in the world. So while the cultural, historical, and aesthetic divides between North and South are certainly important and arguably inseparable from issues of class, it is the material conditions of the North that essentially make such a distinction possible.
One paragraph in the Northern Independence Party’s ‘Vision’ especially caught my attention with its incisiveness and succinct accuracy of description reads as follows:
The impoverishment of the North and areas in other metropoles was driven by capitalism and accelerated under neoliberalism. NIP’s understanding of deprivation, however, is greater than just empty wallets. Poverty has a Northern texture, where public transport is patchy, expensive and infrequent, museums and art galleries few and far between, libraries are closed and town centres have become ghost towns. Poverty is always something lived – not only measured.
I started this piece by noting that it is not simply wealth and class that divides the North of England from the quintessential English South, and that remains the case, but, as with all social and political analysis, the material conditions of the numerous lives who make up a society are of the highest importance.
I would say a strong case could be made for Northern independence based on the material conditions its constituents can inevitably relate to. We all know the Conservative party, parliament, and the broader London-centric political and media machines regard the North with hostility; our struggles and shortcomings treated as a burden to the UK as opposed to the inflicted legacy of class-war and neoliberalism they truly are.
Comments