Southern independence

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Vassenor Here are (some of) the numbers you requested. I have only done 2005 borough constituencies so far.

2005 general election in the urban South

All borough constituencies
LAB — 1,898,955 — 36.8%
CON — 1,720,374 — 33.4%
LDM — 1,174,587 — 22.8%

London
LAB — 1,136,587 — 38.9%
CON — 931,966 — 31.9%
LDM — 638,343 — 21.9%

Borough constituencies outside London
CON — 788,408 — 35.2%
LAB — 762,368 — 34.1%
LDM — 536,244 — 24.0%

[Westmonkwick]

Study showing the south-east puts more into Britain than it gets back: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governme ... ending2020

[Hukhalia]

Study showing the south-east puts more into Britain than it gets back: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governme ... ending2020

that's how countries work; the wealthier parts generally tend to put more into the national economy than they get out of the rest of the country because they had all the wealth in the first place, lol. this doesn't mean that balkanising such countries along these lines is an innately valuable idea

[Vassenor]

Vassenor Here are (some of) the numbers you requested. I have only done 2005 borough constituencies so far.

2005 general election in the urban South

All borough constituencies
LAB — 1,898,955 — 36.8%
CON — 1,720,374 — 33.4%
LDM — 1,174,587 — 22.8%

London
LAB — 1,136,587 — 38.9%
CON — 931,966 — 31.9%
LDM — 638,343 — 21.9%

Borough constituencies outside London
CON — 788,408 — 35.2%
LAB — 762,368 — 34.1%
LDM — 536,244 — 24.0%

OK, so what you're saying is that the Labour government wasn't forced on the south without its consent?

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Vassenor Here are (some of) the numbers you requested. I have only done 2005 borough constituencies so far.

2005 general election in the urban South

All borough constituencies
LAB — 1,898,955 — 36.8%
CON — 1,720,374 — 33.4%
LDM — 1,174,587 — 22.8%

London
LAB — 1,136,587 — 38.9%
CON — 931,966 — 31.9%
LDM — 638,343 — 21.9%

Borough constituencies outside London
CON — 788,408 — 35.2%
LAB — 762,368 — 34.1%
LDM — 536,244 — 24.0%

OK, so what you're saying is that the Labour government wasn't forced on the south without its consent?

No, because not just urban areas can vote, and the result for the whole of the South was:

All Southern constituencies
CON — 4,818,739 — 40.1%
LAB — 3,460,804 — 28.8%
LDM — 3,038,728 — 25.3%

Therefore, it was. In 1997, in 2001, and in 2005.

[Chan Island]

I mean, saying that your an expert in this one topic and saying fax & logic + one random election result and being able to pull it out for 6 pages and whoops I bit the hook

I would trade 6 pages for 6 thought-out responses that seriously engage with the OP in an instant.

I did read the OP, and it did absolutely nothing to address my point that the finance argument is infinitely recursive. Why shouldn't the south secede from Strood then, to use the area in you shine a light to? After all, all that money going into Stood could just as well have gone into boosting Canterbury's thriving economy. Why should rich people in Canterbury fund poor people in Strood? And if they should, why does that argument then not apply to rich people in the south funding poor northerners? Merely acknowledging the existence of these places is not the same thing as putting forward a real argument.

Margaret Thatcher moved out of Grantham when she was 18- she went on to spend the rest of her life living in the South. She studied in Oxford, worked in Essex, represented Finchley for all of her commons career, and died and is buried in London. Hell, she had spent more time as an MP for Finchley by the time she became PM than she had done living in Grantham. To my mind at least, she had thoroughly become a southerner by residence by 1979- something illustrated by her utter dedication to the southern economy at the expense of the rest of the nation, which has been your argument.

Fair cop on Tony Blair, I was wrong there.

But even if I concede that Thatcher was 0% southern, that still shows that southerners have been PM for nearly 50% of the time since 1975- compared to every single other region in the UK combined. And it still shows that 3 southerners have been PM for the past 12 years.

Good question. I would say that, first, there is a difference in the burden being expected, and in what that funding can achieve: places in the South that are a net recipient are far less in number and have a younger demographic profile to the ageing towns of the North, meaning that funding will have benefits for the area and the wider region rather than being wasted for electoral reasons. Second, there is also a cultural element to it. To quote Margaret Thatcher, "it is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."

Thatcher moving South (because the South is where the opportunities are) doesn't make her a Southerner. She was born in Lincolnshire, she grew up in Lincolnshire, she's from the Midlands, not a Southerner.

Southerners have been PM for nearly 50% of the time since 1975, true. But May and Johnson are the two most anti-Southern PMs in history.

The ONS Data of average age in England and Wales, broken by parliamentary constituency.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/resource?uri=/pe ... 044323.png

As you can see, if you exclude London (more on that later btw) the difference between the north and south just are not that dramatic when it comes to age. This notion of "oh they are all poor and old in the north" just is not true, and as we have discussed there are lots of places in the south that fit the description.

And that's ignoring that economic growth in the Midlands and the North outperformed the South minus London. Chosen the 2018 figures to pre-empt where these often go; no disasters from Brexit or Covid to interfere with the data.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdom ... 1998to2018

So this argument of "ageing towns of the North" and "being wasted for electoral votes" is as spurious as it is insulting.

AND OK, you want to go for the cultural element do you? Where to start then... maybe I'll start with the fact that the south of England self-identifies with "British" stronger than every single other region in the UK:

https://www.opinium.com/resource-center ... n-britain/

You are asking the region of Britain that most strongly identifies as British to secede from Britain. How is that a 'cultural' point that bears any merit?

And even if you decided to just focus on 'English', then the south should damn well be taking the north with it at the very least- the north has been very much part of 'our own' since the 11th century. But we've been over that one in other threads; instead let's find some more points where this argument falls apart, shall we?

How about that the fact that, if you bothered to ask, the regions the south has the most gripe with are... other places in the south? Everyone rabbits on about London's economic and cultural dominance, yet you are then asking some of the most conservatives areas in the country to secede taking London with them, despite how their gripes are often about London? How does that make any sense? And all of that of course is ignoring the proud Celtic fringe heritage of the South-West (complete with their own language)- by many metrics the man from Brighton has more in common with the man from Birmingham than they do with one from Truro.

From my point of view it's remarkably simple: everyone in this fair nation are British citizens and fully deserving of all the rights, benefits and duties that come with it, no matter if they are from John O'Groats, Swansea, Clitheroe, Croyden or St Albans. But you are arguing that Croyden and St Albans should leave the other three despite St Albans probably having the most issues with Croyden vs everyone else. For no good reason that stands to scrutiny.
And there is a much better, more consistent, stance you can take if it really is autonomy you seek- federalism. But federalism for all locales of the UK, not the special status bullshit you randomly want to assign to the south because reasons.

Thatcher was born and bred in Lincolnshire, but when she became PM she had spent more time just as MP for Finchley than she had spent in Grantham- before and since. She may have come from Grantham, but the woman, the prime minister, was thoroughly a product of the south by 1979. People change over time, and your surroundings and home place are some of the biggest influences. This is why nearly every country on earth allows people to apply for citizenship after spending some amount of time residing in that country. People are not as simple as "she grew up there therefore she is x".

And I am really going to need to see a good argument as to how you think of May and Johnson as anti-southern. Because in many ways I actually agree, but strongly suspect they are for reasons so different that we would talk past each other.

[Vassenor]

OK, so what you're saying is that the Labour government wasn't forced on the south without its consent?

No, because not just urban areas can vote, and the result for the whole of the South was:

All Southern constituencies
CON — 4,818,739 — 40.1%
LAB — 3,460,804 — 28.8%
LDM — 3,038,728 — 25.3%

Therefore, it was. In 1997, in 2001, and in 2005.

And this proves widespread support for Southern Independence how?

[Nationalist Northumbria]

No, because not just urban areas can vote, and the result for the whole of the South was:

All Southern constituencies
CON — 4,818,739 — 40.1%
LAB — 3,460,804 — 28.8%
LDM — 3,038,728 — 25.3%

Therefore, it was. In 1997, in 2001, and in 2005.

And this proves widespread support for Southern Independence how?

Since when was that part of your question? Since when have I been trying to prove widespread support for Southern independence?

[Nationalist Northumbria]

I would trade 6 pages for 6 thought-out responses that seriously engage with the OP in an instant.


Good question. I would say that, first, there is a difference in the burden being expected, and in what that funding can achieve: places in the South that are a net recipient are far less in number and have a younger demographic profile to the ageing towns of the North, meaning that funding will have benefits for the area and the wider region rather than being wasted for electoral reasons. Second, there is also a cultural element to it. To quote Margaret Thatcher, "it is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."

Thatcher moving South (because the South is where the opportunities are) doesn't make her a Southerner. She was born in Lincolnshire, she grew up in Lincolnshire, she's from the Midlands, not a Southerner.

Southerners have been PM for nearly 50% of the time since 1975, true. But May and Johnson are the two most anti-Southern PMs in history.

The ONS Data of average age in England and Wales, broken by parliamentary constituency.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/resource?uri=/pe ... 044323.png

As you can see, if you exclude London (more on that later btw) the difference between the north and south just are not that dramatic when it comes to age. This notion of "oh they are all poor and old in the north" just is not true, and as we have discussed there are lots of places in the south that fit the description.

And that's ignoring that economic growth in the Midlands and the North outperformed the South minus London. Chosen the 2018 figures to pre-empt where these often go; no disasters from Brexit or Covid to interfere with the data.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdom ... 1998to2018

So this argument of "ageing towns of the North" and "being wasted for electoral votes" is as spurious as it is insulting.

AND OK, you want to go for the cultural element do you? Where to start then... maybe I'll start with the fact that the south of England self-identifies with "British" stronger than every single other region in the UK:

https://www.opinium.com/resource-center ... n-britain/

You are asking the region of Britain that most strongly identifies as British to secede from Britain. How is that a 'cultural' point that bears any merit?

And even if you decided to just focus on 'English', then the south should damn well be taking the north with it at the very least- the north has been very much part of 'our own' since the 11th century. But we've been over that one in other threads; instead let's find some more points where this argument falls apart, shall we?

How about that the fact that, if you bothered to ask, the regions the south has the most gripe with are... other places in the south? Everyone rabbits on about London's economic and cultural dominance, yet you are then asking some of the most conservatives areas in the country to secede taking London with them, despite how their gripes are often about London? How does that make any sense? And all of that of course is ignoring the proud Celtic fringe heritage of the South-West (complete with their own language)- by many metrics the man from Brighton has more in common with the man from Birmingham than they do with one from Truro.

From my point of view it's remarkably simple: everyone in this fair nation are British citizens and fully deserving of all the rights, benefits and duties that come with it, no matter if they are from John O'Groats, Swansea, Clitheroe, Croyden or St Albans. But you are arguing that Croyden and St Albans should leave the other three despite St Albans probably having the most issues with Croyden vs everyone else. For no good reason that stands to scrutiny.
And there is a much better, more consistent, stance you can take if it really is autonomy you seek- federalism. But federalism for all locales of the UK, not the special status bullshit you randomly want to assign to the south because reasons.

Thatcher was born and bred in Lincolnshire, but when she became PM she had spent more time just as MP for Finchley than she had spent in Grantham- before and since. She may have come from Grantham, but the woman, the prime minister, was thoroughly a product of the south by 1979. People change over time, and your surroundings and home place are some of the biggest influences. This is why nearly every country on earth allows people to apply for citizenship after spending some amount of time residing in that country. People are not as simple as "she grew up there therefore she is x".

And I am really going to need to see a good argument as to how you think of May and Johnson as anti-southern. Because in many ways I actually agree, but strongly suspect they are for reasons so different that we would talk past each other.

There are significant differences within parliamentary constituencies. The poorest towns in Kent, to give one example, are the youngest. Not so in the Northern towns - compare Margate to Grimsby. "economic growth in the Midlands and the North" is in the Northern cities, not the Northern towns which yes are ageing. And it's not even "they're all poor in the North", because 'levelling up' money is being given to Rishi Sunak's well-off Richmond constituency.

It is for votes. Hence why the money is going to Conservative seats in the North.

The cultural element isn't about Britishness/Englishness identification so IDK why you're bringing that up out of nowhere.

They would be easily able to outvote London so that's not much of a concern. The South West does not have "Celtic fringe heritage", Cornwall does. Cornwall is not even close to being the South West.

It would come down to how Thatcher saw herself, then, if that's the argument you're making.

May unsuccessfully campaigned in 2017 on an anti-Southern, pro-Midlands/Northern conservatism. So did Johnson in 2019, except to more success.

[Chan Island]

The ONS Data of average age in England and Wales, broken by parliamentary constituency.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/resource?uri=/pe ... 044323.png

As you can see, if you exclude London (more on that later btw) the difference between the north and south just are not that dramatic when it comes to age. This notion of "oh they are all poor and old in the north" just is not true, and as we have discussed there are lots of places in the south that fit the description.

And that's ignoring that economic growth in the Midlands and the North outperformed the South minus London. Chosen the 2018 figures to pre-empt where these often go; no disasters from Brexit or Covid to interfere with the data.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdom ... 1998to2018

So this argument of "ageing towns of the North" and "being wasted for electoral votes" is as spurious as it is insulting.

AND OK, you want to go for the cultural element do you? Where to start then... maybe I'll start with the fact that the south of England self-identifies with "British" stronger than every single other region in the UK:

https://www.opinium.com/resource-center ... n-britain/

You are asking the region of Britain that most strongly identifies as British to secede from Britain. How is that a 'cultural' point that bears any merit?

And even if you decided to just focus on 'English', then the south should damn well be taking the north with it at the very least- the north has been very much part of 'our own' since the 11th century. But we've been over that one in other threads; instead let's find some more points where this argument falls apart, shall we?

How about that the fact that, if you bothered to ask, the regions the south has the most gripe with are... other places in the south? Everyone rabbits on about London's economic and cultural dominance, yet you are then asking some of the most conservatives areas in the country to secede taking London with them, despite how their gripes are often about London? How does that make any sense? And all of that of course is ignoring the proud Celtic fringe heritage of the South-West (complete with their own language)- by many metrics the man from Brighton has more in common with the man from Birmingham than they do with one from Truro.

From my point of view it's remarkably simple: everyone in this fair nation are British citizens and fully deserving of all the rights, benefits and duties that come with it, no matter if they are from John O'Groats, Swansea, Clitheroe, Croyden or St Albans. But you are arguing that Croyden and St Albans should leave the other three despite St Albans probably having the most issues with Croyden vs everyone else. For no good reason that stands to scrutiny.
And there is a much better, more consistent, stance you can take if it really is autonomy you seek- federalism. But federalism for all locales of the UK, not the special status bullshit you randomly want to assign to the south because reasons.

Thatcher was born and bred in Lincolnshire, but when she became PM she had spent more time just as MP for Finchley than she had spent in Grantham- before and since. She may have come from Grantham, but the woman, the prime minister, was thoroughly a product of the south by 1979. People change over time, and your surroundings and home place are some of the biggest influences. This is why nearly every country on earth allows people to apply for citizenship after spending some amount of time residing in that country. People are not as simple as "she grew up there therefore she is x".

And I am really going to need to see a good argument as to how you think of May and Johnson as anti-southern. Because in many ways I actually agree, but strongly suspect they are for reasons so different that we would talk past each other.

There are significant differences within parliamentary constituencies. The poorest towns in Kent, to give one example, are the youngest. Not so in the Northern towns - compare Margate to Grimsby. "economic growth in the Midlands and the North" is in the Northern cities, not the Northern towns which yes are ageing. And it's not even "they're all poor in the North", because 'levelling up' money is being given to Rishi Sunak's well-off Richmond constituency.

It is for votes. Hence why the money is going to Conservative seats in the North.

The cultural element isn't about Britishness/Englishness identification so IDK why you're bringing that up out of nowhere.

They would be easily able to outvote London so that's not much of a concern. The South West does not have "Celtic fringe heritage", Cornwall does. Cornwall is not even close to being the South West.

It would come down to how Thatcher saw herself, then, if that's the argument you're making.

May unsuccessfully campaigned in 2017 on an anti-Southern, pro-Midlands/Northern conservatism. So did Johnson in 2019, except to more success.

And now we have somehow both come back to my infinitely recursive argument, because why should rich southern cities pay for poor southern towns again, but also back to your own argument that there are differences within constituencies. Because yes, you will find plenty of towns like Chilham or Wye in Kent where you struggle to find residents under the age of 750. Does that mean then that Chilham should get no money ever? Or is Southend's old as f population deserve more cash than vibrant young areas in Manchester simply by virtue of being southern?

Glad however that you have acquainted yourself with the basics of politics in this country.

The Britishness identification is THE cultural element most relevant in this discussion. Why should the region of Britain that most strongly identifies as British secede from Britain? You can strip away all of the layers of history, all of the economics, all of the politics, but you will still be left with this question, the most paramount question when it comes to whether a nation deserves to exist or not. The people who live in the south are the most closely wedded to the notion of being British subjects out of anywhere in the country- so what should be motivating them to leave the country they so strongly and proudly identify as?

Cornwall is still very much part of the southwest, and this sidestep also does nothing to address what I raised. Why would this area with a strong celtic traditions want to go along with this southern independence movement? And that's me going along with it (voting patterns suggest something deeper). Also, wow, how very inspiring to tell someone living in London "lmao, just get outvoted every time bro".

It ultimately would come down to her own views, and these days she's a bit too dead to ask. But her biographer David Cannadine summarised it as this: "she distanced herself from her hometown at the earliest opportunity, and seldom felt nostalgic towards it in her years of power and fame", which can very well be a window into how she herself felt about matters.

Word salad. What does that mean?

[Nationalist Northumbria]

There are significant differences within parliamentary constituencies. The poorest towns in Kent, to give one example, are the youngest. Not so in the Northern towns - compare Margate to Grimsby. "economic growth in the Midlands and the North" is in the Northern cities, not the Northern towns which yes are ageing. And it's not even "they're all poor in the North", because 'levelling up' money is being given to Rishi Sunak's well-off Richmond constituency.

It is for votes. Hence why the money is going to Conservative seats in the North.

The cultural element isn't about Britishness/Englishness identification so IDK why you're bringing that up out of nowhere.

They would be easily able to outvote London so that's not much of a concern. The South West does not have "Celtic fringe heritage", Cornwall does. Cornwall is not even close to being the South West.

It would come down to how Thatcher saw herself, then, if that's the argument you're making.

May unsuccessfully campaigned in 2017 on an anti-Southern, pro-Midlands/Northern conservatism. So did Johnson in 2019, except to more success.

And now we have somehow both come back to my infinitely recursive argument, because why should rich southern cities pay for poor southern towns again, but also back to your own argument that there are differences within constituencies. Because yes, you will find plenty of towns like Chilham or Wye in Kent where you struggle to find residents under the age of 750. Does that mean then that Chilham should get no money ever? Or is Southend's old as f population deserve more cash than vibrant young areas in Manchester simply by virtue of being southern?

Glad however that you have acquainted yourself with the basics of politics in this country.

The Britishness identification is THE cultural element most relevant in this discussion. Why should the region of Britain that most strongly identifies as British secede from Britain? You can strip away all of the layers of history, all of the economics, all of the politics, but you will still be left with this question, the most paramount question when it comes to whether a nation deserves to exist or not. The people who live in the south are the most closely wedded to the notion of being British subjects out of anywhere in the country- so what should be motivating them to leave the country they so strongly and proudly identify as?

Cornwall is still very much part of the southwest, and this sidestep also does nothing to address what I raised. Why would this area with a strong celtic traditions want to go along with this southern independence movement? And that's me going along with it (voting patterns suggest something deeper). Also, wow, how very inspiring to tell someone living in London "lmao, just get outvoted every time bro".

It ultimately would come down to her own views, and these days she's a bit too dead to ask. But her biographer David Cannadine summarised it as this: "she distanced herself from her hometown at the earliest opportunity, and seldom felt nostalgic towards it in her years of power and fame", which can very well be a window into how she herself felt about matters.

Word salad. What does that mean?

I’m reading manga and on my phone now but I’ll get a full response to you up tomorrow.

[Forsher]

Also BTW since Vassenor asked for "the numbers adjusted for population density" and this is the best way to do it and since I have nothing better to do or read this afternoon I am putting together the numbers for all of Southern England divided into borough constituencies (outside London), borough constituencies (inside London), and county constituencies.

How do you adjust raw counts of people for population density? Does your vote count less if you live in a more densely populated borough? It doesn't make any sense.

Vassenor Here are (some of) the numbers you requested. I have only done 2005 borough constituencies so far.

2005 general election in the urban South

All borough constituencies
LAB — 1,898,955 — 36.8%
CON — 1,720,374 — 33.4%
LDM — 1,174,587 — 22.8%

London
LAB — 1,136,587 — 38.9%
CON — 931,966 — 31.9%
LDM — 638,343 — 21.9%

Borough constituencies outside London
CON — 788,408 — 35.2%
LAB — 762,368 — 34.1%
LDM — 536,244 — 24.0%

Oh, I get it, you're aggregating differently.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

There are significant differences within parliamentary constituencies. The poorest towns in Kent, to give one example, are the youngest. Not so in the Northern towns - compare Margate to Grimsby. "economic growth in the Midlands and the North" is in the Northern cities, not the Northern towns which yes are ageing. And it's not even "they're all poor in the North", because 'levelling up' money is being given to Rishi Sunak's well-off Richmond constituency.

It is for votes. Hence why the money is going to Conservative seats in the North.

The cultural element isn't about Britishness/Englishness identification so IDK why you're bringing that up out of nowhere.

They would be easily able to outvote London so that's not much of a concern. The South West does not have "Celtic fringe heritage", Cornwall does. Cornwall is not even close to being the South West.

It would come down to how Thatcher saw herself, then, if that's the argument you're making.

May unsuccessfully campaigned in 2017 on an anti-Southern, pro-Midlands/Northern conservatism. So did Johnson in 2019, except to more success.

And now we have somehow both come back to my infinitely recursive argument, because why should rich southern cities pay for poor southern towns again, but also back to your own argument that there are differences within constituencies. Because yes, you will find plenty of towns like Chilham or Wye in Kent where you struggle to find residents under the age of 750. Does that mean then that Chilham should get no money ever? Or is Southend's old as f population deserve more cash than vibrant young areas in Manchester simply by virtue of being southern?

Glad however that you have acquainted yourself with the basics of politics in this country.

The Britishness identification is THE cultural element most relevant in this discussion. Why should the region of Britain that most strongly identifies as British secede from Britain? You can strip away all of the layers of history, all of the economics, all of the politics, but you will still be left with this question, the most paramount question when it comes to whether a nation deserves to exist or not. The people who live in the south are the most closely wedded to the notion of being British subjects out of anywhere in the country- so what should be motivating them to leave the country they so strongly and proudly identify as?

Cornwall is still very much part of the southwest, and this sidestep also does nothing to address what I raised. Why would this area with a strong celtic traditions want to go along with this southern independence movement? And that's me going along with it (voting patterns suggest something deeper). Also, wow, how very inspiring to tell someone living in London "lmao, just get outvoted every time bro".

It ultimately would come down to her own views, and these days she's a bit too dead to ask. But her biographer David Cannadine summarised it as this: "she distanced herself from her hometown at the earliest opportunity, and seldom felt nostalgic towards it in her years of power and fame", which can very well be a window into how she herself felt about matters.

Word salad. What does that mean?

OK NVM I'm on my laptop.

"vibrant young areas in Manchester" are irrelevant to the conversation because we are talking about Northern towns, not Northern cities. Chilham and Wye are both affluent villages so it's hardly as though they need the money. Also Southend, unlike Northern towns, is actually becoming younger (the result of the Estuary being one of the few places near London where houses don't cost an arm and a leg) so I'd wait for the 2021 census results to be released before making pronouncements about its supposedly "old as f" population.

Good question! But not one where I have an answer for you. As I've repeatedly said, devolution and full fiscal autonomy would be a better deal than independence. Yes Cornwall is part of the South West. It's a very small part of the South West. Talking about "the proud Celtic fringe heritage of the South-West" (your words) (also, they don't have their own language, Cornish is a conlang and almost nobody speaks it lol) is like saying all Southerners are Cockneys.

London voted Conservative with a margin above the national average in 1983, 1987, and 1992. Not "outvoted every time" - just now that it's veered far to the left. And IDK what's word salad-y about pointing out that the turn of the Conservative Party in recent years is focused on winning over elderly (mostly retired) home-owning Northerners at the expense of their Southern base.

[New Eestiball]

Study showing the south-east puts more into Britain than it gets back: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governme ... ending2020

So should New England secede because it has historically been more Democrat and it is a rich region?

Nationalist Northumbria, all of the arguments you're making are valid points for New England independence.

New England independence is ridiculous. I'm from there and live there, so I should know.
If your argument has a very close parallel that is ridiculous, your argument probably is ridiculous.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Study showing the south-east puts more into Britain than it gets back: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governme ... ending2020

So should New England secede because it has historically been more Democrat and it is a rich region?

Nationalist Northumbria, all of the arguments you're making are valid points for New England independence.

New England independence is ridiculous. I'm from there and live there, so I should know.
If your argument has a very close parallel that is ridiculous, your argument probably is ridiculous.

Dude idc for your "WHAT ABOUT THIS!?"

[Space Squid]

So should New England secede because it has historically been more Democrat and it is a rich region?

Nationalist Northumbria, all of the arguments you're making are valid points for New England independence.

New England independence is ridiculous. I'm from there and live there, so I should know.
If your argument has a very close parallel that is ridiculous, your argument probably is ridiculous.

Dude idc for your "WHAT ABOUT THIS!?"

Your entire thread is just a "WHAT ABOUT THIS!?"

[Westmonkwick]

Would they raise soldiers’ pay?

Apparently most British Army other ranks are from either the North, Yorkshire or the North-East.

[Newcastle United FC]

Why not have Newcastle secede away from England and become a puppet state of Saudi Arabia? I know a certain MbS who loves it...

[Yusufzai Swat]

Why not have Newcastle secede away from England and become a puppet state of Saudi Arabia? I know a certain MbS who loves it...

That’s not that funny, my friend.

[Newcastle United FC]

Why not have Newcastle secede away from England and become a puppet state of Saudi Arabia? I know a certain MbS who loves it...

That’s not that funny, my friend.

I don't think you get that reference.

[Westmonkwick]

That’s not that funny, my friend.

I don't think you get that reference.

Yes I do, MBS is buying Newcastle FC, it’s still not funny.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Dude idc for your "WHAT ABOUT THIS!?"

Your entire thread is just a "WHAT ABOUT THIS!?"

It's not a complete diversion from the topic of the thread so no.

[Risottia]

I said "such as John Redwood", not "such as Umberto Bossi". I don't care for the domestic politics of any European countries I know nothing about Lega Nord except that it exists/existed and was a regionalist party for a wealthy part of Italy.

You said "like LN before it was hijacked". LN was founded and led by Bossi, and Bossi steered it into an organic alliance with Berlusconi and the fascists.
If you don't care for European countries and know nothing about them, avoid using their politics as example, it will spare you a lot of embarassment.

[The Archregimancy]

(also, they don't have their own language, Cornish is a conlang and almost nobody speaks it lol)

I've largely stayed out of this thread because it's usually pointless to debate with a committed ideologue hell-bent on selectively using data to advance a particular nationalist worldview, but one ongoing theme in this thread - and indeed others - is your blindness to any and all nationalisms other than your own.

If it's pointed out that the north of England is, via Bede's Ecclesiastical History, the spiritual home of English identity, and you try and argue that Jarrow and most of Durham are really culturally Southern (with any other poster, I would have assumed this was a joke; your track record in this thread makes it difficult to assume as much).

If it's pointed out that British identity is deeply embedded in the identity of the southeast of England, so 'southern independence' would have no ideological traction, you attempt to move the debate away from cultural self-identification - which is surely key to any discussion of independence movements - and focus narrowly on politics and economics.

If the example of Cornwall comes up, you attempt to handwave away Cornish identity and language as irrelevant. And on this point, while it's true that Cornish died out as a native community language some 200 years ago, and that revived Cornish has only a few hundred bilingual speakers, dismissing it as a 'conlang' amply shows how blinded you are nationalisms other than your own. Here you are, running around the forums attempting to build the argument for the revival of an state that hasn't existed since the 10th century, but simultaneously dismissive towards a language that was well-attested as a literate community language until the end of the 18th century, remains core to a sense of Cornish identity (even if that's not necessarily a pro-independence identity), and whose modern revived form is simply an orthographic compromise between different past written forms of the language (which makes it little different from many other standardised European languages), and whose phonology is based in part on historical records and its known relationship with Breton and Welsh (which makes it less artificial than, say, Hebrew, Ge'ez, or Coptic).

And this is why it's so difficult to engage constructively with your threads. Your dedication to your particular fringe worldview is so strong that you combine a particular type of tunnel vision that dismisses anything that might even mildly challenge your core argument with a willingness to not so much move goalposts as to chop up the goalposts, turn them into kindling, and burn them to a cinder if you think it would advance your viewpoint.

It's a shame; your contributions on other topics are often useful and constructive. But it's precisely because you can be constructive on other topics, combined your rigid consistency to a cause that has so few followers, that have led me to reach the conclusion that you're not a satire account - which I originally assumed - but rather completely in earnest.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

I said "such as John Redwood", not "such as Umberto Bossi". I don't care for the domestic politics of any European countries I know nothing about Lega Nord except that it exists/existed and was a regionalist party for a wealthy part of Italy.

You said "like LN before it was hijacked". LN was founded and led by Bossi, and Bossi steered it into an organic alliance with Berlusconi and the fascists.
If you don't care for European countries and know nothing about them, avoid using their politics as example, it will spare you a lot of embarassment.

*embarrassment

I do have enough basic knowledge of Italian politics to know that Lega was already aligned with the right. But what you're saying is like saying that, just because the SNP was already vaguely aligned with the left, it wouldn't be a hijacking if one of the pre-Corbyn election "OMG THEY SHOULD STAND EVERYWHERE! And be a wholesome UK-wide progressive party!" had miraculously (not in a good way) gone ahead. If you'll forgive the hypothetical but very illustrative example which (unsurprisingly) proves me entirely right.

(also, they don't have their own language, Cornish is a conlang and almost nobody speaks it lol)

I've largely stayed out of this thread because it's usually pointless to debate with a committed ideologue hell-bent on selectively using data to advance a particular nationalist worldview, but one ongoing theme in this thread - and indeed others - is your blindness to any and all nationalisms other than your own.

If it's pointed out that the north of England is, via Bede's Ecclesiastical History, the spiritual home of English identity, and you try and argue that Jarrow and most of Durham are really culturally Southern (with any other poster, I would have assumed this was a joke; your track record in this thread makes it difficult to assume as much).

If it's pointed out that British identity is deeply embedded in the identity of the southeast of England, so 'southern independence' would have no ideological traction, you attempt to move the debate away from cultural self-identification - which is surely key to any discussion of independence movements - and focus narrowly on politics and economics.

If the example of Cornwall comes up, you attempt to handwave away Cornish identity and language as irrelevant. And on this point, while it's true that Cornish died out as a native community language some 200 years ago, and that revived Cornish has only a few hundred bilingual speakers, dismissing it as a 'conlang' amply shows how blinded you are nationalisms other than your own. Here you are, running around the forums attempting to build the argument for the revival of an state that hasn't existed since the 10th century, but simultaneously dismissive towards a language that was well-attested as a literate community language until the end of the 18th century, remains core to a sense of Cornish identity (even if that's not necessarily a pro-independence identity), and whose modern revived form is simply an orthographic compromise between different past written forms of the language (which makes it little different from many other standardised European languages), and whose phonology is based in part on historical records and its known relationship with Breton and Welsh (which makes it less artificial than, say, Hebrew, Ge'ez, or Coptic).

And this is why it's so difficult to engage constructively with your threads. Your dedication to your particular fringe worldview is so strong that you combine a particular type of tunnel vision that dismisses anything that might even mildly challenge your core argument with a willingness to not so much move goalposts as to chop up the goalposts, turn them into kindling, and burn them to a cinder if you think it would advance your viewpoint.

It's a shame; your contributions on other topics are often useful and constructive. But it's precisely because you can be constructive on other topics, combined your rigid consistency to a cause that has so few followers, that have led me to reach the conclusion that you're not a satire account - which I originally assumed - but rather completely in earnest.

If I'm blind to any and all nationalisms other than my own, how come I'm willing to seriously consider Southern nationalism (even if, as I state in the OP, I ultimately reject it in favour of devolution and no longer forcing the South to subsidise the North)?

As a professional historian you are no doubt aware of the tragic events of the 9th century that saw the Northumbrian state fractured. In discussions of culture, I consider it perfectly reasonable to point out that the North East of England was - despite the annoying "Geordie Viking" nonsense narrative - unlike the rest of the North (hence the absence of -thorp(e)s, -thwaites, and -bys) until industrialisation. I wouldn't say it's "culturally Southern" but not all parts of the north of England are the same and as a Northumbrian I find it really quite insulting to be told that Yorkshire (where most people consider themselves "more Yorkshire than English") has any claim to the legacy of Bede. As for "cultural self-identification" that has not been part of the argument at any point. Sure, I've focused narrowly on politics and economics, but that's not changing the goalposts, that's where the goalposts were all along in this thread.

I don't handwave Cornish identity away as irrelevant to Cornwall (it is to South West England though), but I will gladly point out that "complete with their own language" (which was a remark made about the entire South West!) is a bit much when less than a thousand people can actually competently speak it.

Also, the Northern Independence Party (the registration of which with the Electoral Commission ahead of the Hartlepool by-election I was responsible for) actually has 59,200 followers, up 100 from November.