Southern independence

[Nationalist Northumbria]

No, what you're doing is getting unpleasant and actually rather aggressive for no reason.

So do you not have any proof or...?

Give a specific claim for which you want proof.

[Herador]

So do you not have any proof or...?

Give a specific claim for which you want proof.

Vass and I already asked, you dodged giving any, but I legit want to know if you can.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Give a specific claim for which you want proof.

Vass and I already asked, you dodged giving any, but I legit want to know if you can.

Give a specific claim for which you want proof.

[Arvenia]

Vass and I already asked, you dodged giving any, but I legit want to know if you can.

Give a specific claim for which you want proof.

Dude, you know what Heraldor was talking about.

[Herador]

Dude, you know what Heraldor was talking about.

He answered the question tbh, he can't.

[Risottia]

Perhaps a model for a 'Southern English nationalism' would be akin to Lega Nord before its hijacking, with a principled man...

Implying Umberto Bossi is a principled man and somehow someone else "hijacked" LN and allied it with the fascists and Berlusconi.

Ffs.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Dude, you know what Heraldor was talking about.

Dude, you know what Heraldor was talking about.

He answered the question tbh, he can't.

Lol this is so typical. "You know what I'm talking about. You can read my mind. Oh, you can't? Guess this discussion is over."

Perhaps a model for a 'Southern English nationalism' would be akin to Lega Nord before its hijacking, with a principled man...

Implying Umberto Bossi is a principled man and somehow someone else "hijacked" LN and allied it with the fascists and Berlusconi.

Ffs.

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.

[Herador]

Lol this is so typical. "You know what I'm talking about. You can read my mind. Oh, you can't? Guess this discussion is over."

It's literally in writing in this very thread homie, I know you can read.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Lol this is so typical. "You know what I'm talking about. You can read my mind. Oh, you can't? Guess this discussion is over."

It's literally in writing in this very thread homie, I know you can read.

There's nothing you've said I haven't already adequately replied to.

[Forsher]

Lol this is so typical. "You know what I'm talking about. You can read my mind. Oh, you can't? Guess this discussion is over."

It's literally in writing in this very thread homie, I know you can read.

I don't know what you want NN to prove either. It's not clear. You've spent so long complaining about the lack of answering, I wouldn't even know which post you think you asked the question in.

[Cetacea]

I support southern independence - dump the sassenachs and free the north of their burden

[Vassenor]

It's literally in writing in this very thread homie, I know you can read.

There's nothing you've said I haven't already adequately replied to.

By copypastaing the election numbers and screeching about how we just need to trust that your claims are accurate and supported.

Why don't you start by actually proving actual support for the idea of southern independence.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

There's nothing you've said I haven't already adequately replied to.

By copypastaing the election numbers and screeching about how we just need to trust that your claims are accurate and supported.

Why don't you start by actually proving actual support for the idea of southern independence.

I posted election numbers in response to a BS claim that the South votes Labour though? And when I posted them you jumped into the conversation with "And what are the numbers adjusted for population density?" which meant literally nothing (and when I pointed that out you didn't even try to dispute it).

First, this thread is not necessarily about Southern independence (as is stated in the OP). Second, popular support for it is irrelevant to discussion of it on NSG. Third, I readily concede that there is not much popular support for it - but again, that is irrelevant to discussion of it in and of itself on NSG.

[Vassenor]

By copypastaing the election numbers and screeching about how we just need to trust that your claims are accurate and supported.

Why don't you start by actually proving actual support for the idea of southern independence.

I posted election numbers in response to a BS claim that the South votes Labour though? And when I posted them you jumped into the conversation with "And what are the numbers adjusted for population density?" which meant literally nothing (and when I pointed that out you didn't even try to dispute it).

First, this thread is not necessarily about Southern independence (as is stated in the OP). Second, popular support for it is irrelevant to discussion of it on NSG. Third, I readily concede that there is not much popular support for it - but again, that is irrelevant to discussion of it in and of itself on NSG.

So there's not much public support for it but you want it to happen anyway. Quelle Surprise.

And apparently this thread isn't actually about the thing the title and OP says it's about. Huh.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

I posted election numbers in response to a BS claim that the South votes Labour though? And when I posted them you jumped into the conversation with "And what are the numbers adjusted for population density?" which meant literally nothing (and when I pointed that out you didn't even try to dispute it).

First, this thread is not necessarily about Southern independence (as is stated in the OP). Second, popular support for it is irrelevant to discussion of it on NSG. Third, I readily concede that there is not much popular support for it - but again, that is irrelevant to discussion of it in and of itself on NSG.

So there's not much public support for it but you want it to happen anyway. Quelle Surprise.

And apparently this thread isn't actually about the thing the title and OP says it's about. Huh.

I said I would support fiscal autonomy, not independence. Read the OP.

[Arvenia]

So there's not much public support for it but you want it to happen anyway. Quelle Surprise.

And apparently this thread isn't actually about the thing the title and OP says it's about. Huh.

I said I would support fiscal autonomy, not independence. Read the OP.

Maybe you should change the title of this thread to either "Southern devolution" or "Southern fiscal autonomy".

[Nationalist Northumbria]

I said I would support fiscal autonomy, not independence. Read the OP.

Maybe you should change the title of this thread to either "Southern devolution" or "Southern fiscal autonomy".

That's not nearly as attention-grabbing.

[Arvenia]

Maybe you should change the title of this thread to either "Southern devolution" or "Southern fiscal autonomy".

That's not nearly as attention-grabbing.

What do you mean?

[Hukhalia]

That's not nearly as attention-grabbing.

What do you mean?

it's an implicit admission that, as ever, NN is a master of the bait; a master baiter, if you will. his entire schtick is blatant bait that everyone falls for because this is the internet and everyone needs the last word

[Nationalist Northumbria]

That's not nearly as attention-grabbing.

What do you mean?

What do you mean?

it's an implicit admission that, as ever, NN is a master of the bait; a master baiter, if you will. his entire schtick is blatant bait that everyone falls for because this is the internet and everyone needs the last word

No, it's like in advertising. You want the slogans that get people wondering what it's about, in this case "Southern independence", not the ones that don't like "Southern fiscal autonomy". Nothing about baiting. I am genuinely interested in discussing Southern England and the prospects for an alternative political settlement.

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.

[Perikuresu]

What do you mean?

it's an implicit admission that, as ever, NN is a master of the bait; a master baiter, if you will. his entire schtick is blatant bait that everyone falls for because this is the internet and everyone needs the last word

Better said than me, not that anyone's gonna listen to it and they're gonna keep sticking their heads out the trench

[Nationalist Northumbria]

it's an implicit admission that, as ever, NN is a master of the bait; a master baiter, if you will. his entire schtick is blatant bait that everyone falls for because this is the internet and everyone needs the last word

Better said than me, not that anyone's gonna listen to it and they're gonna keep sticking their heads out the trench

"Better said than me" Being able to express an incorrect opinion 'better' does not make it any less incorrect.

[Perikuresu]

Better said than me, not that anyone's gonna listen to it and they're gonna keep sticking their heads out the trench

"Better said than me" Being able to express an incorrect opinion 'better' does not make it any less incorrect.

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

[Chan Island]

OK?

Labour hasn't been in power for 12 years! The South's party of choice, the Conservatives, have been. In fact, the conservatives were in charge for 75% of the 20th century- and a good portion of the rest of the 25% were the liberals who also were strong in the south. The argument that the south should secede because 17 years ago the south didn't vote for the party in power at the time, strikes me as exceptionally strange. And that's even ignoring the fact that millions of Britons in the south voted then and now for the Labour party.

And that's before we look at the individuals in charge themselves. Every prime minister since Gordon Brown has been from the south or London- and if we exclude old Gordon, we have to reach back all the way to Harold Wilson for a non-southern origin PM. Only 4 years of non-southerner PMs since 1975 counts as being dominated.

The argument of "x-place gets less back than it gives" is not only a tough question to charge (because how it's defined always seems suspiciously convenient depending on the argument), but also an infinitely recursive one. For example, in Kent, productive university city Canterbury undoubtably would be a net giver under any definition, but nearby is financially struggling Thanet which has been seeing a lot of government direct investment over the past decade and would unquestionably be a net taker. Does this mean that an independent Kent should see Canterbury secede from Thanet? Should the whole of the UK secede from Thanet just because it pays into the place?


And Brexit was the most idiotic policy decision Britain has taken in a generation. It just proves my argument.

Please re-read the OP.

Also, you're wrong about PMs.

South
Not South

Wilson
Callaghan
Thatcher
Major
Blair
Brown
Cameron
May
Johnson (not born in South but I'm being generous here)

Non-Southern PM in office: 1974-1976, 1979-1990, 1997-2010 (26 years)
Southern PM in office: 1976-1979, 1990-1997, 2010-present (22 years)

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.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

"Better said than me" Being able to express an incorrect opinion 'better' does not make it any less incorrect.

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.