While the independence of other component parts of Britain has been discussed to death, one intriguing possibility that has so far gone undiscussed on this forum is Southern independence. The South of England, undoubtedly England's spiritual heartland, has also undoubtedly been its economic heartland since the decline of the North. Yet, with the exception of London, public spending per capita is the lowest in Britain. Put simply, Southerners aren't getting back what they contribute.
While the government in Westminster talks of 'levelling up' in the North to pander to voters there, there are plenty of towns in the South that are simply neglected. The Medway towns, for instance, are getting next to nothing while wealthy Northern towns such as Richmond (in Chancellor Rishi Sunak's constituency) are given the highest priority. This is clearly unfair.
In 1966, when Labour won a landslide, all of southern England except London voted against socialism. This was repeated in 1997 (when the party won a mere 59 of the 190 southern English seats outside London), 2001 (58), and 2005 (45), when the South had to endure 13 years of Labour government it rejected. This is not merely a matter of demographics: during the 1980s, Southern working-class voters supported Thatcher (even improving from 1983 to 1987) while their Northern counterparts backed Labour. There is a real cultural and political disconnect between the Northern and Southern halves of England that goes beyond class distribution.
Perhaps a model for a 'Southern English nationalism' would be akin to Lega Nord before its hijacking, with a principled man such as John Redwood stepping up to the plate. Perhaps instead of independence a deal for full devolution could be reached, preventing governments from opportunistically stripping it of wealth with the belief that the region is either safe for them (Conservatives) or will never vote for them (Labour). What do you think, NSG? It may surprise you to hear that I, personally, am in favour of fiscal autonomy for the South.
