An independent North is not only viable, but this article will argue, although briefly, that independence is a necessity if Northern culture is to survive being systematically destroyed by Westminster. Similar arguments arise when discussing Northern independence; the same arguments are used to undermine Scottish and Welsh independence movements. These arguments often begin with the claim that the North needs Westminster to survive. I will argue that it is the other way round. If the North becomes independent, who is left for Westminster to take advantage of, exploit, and receive false levelling-up promises? The Scots clicked on a while ago that they were being neglected and exploited, and I hope they succeed in their plight for independence, but now it is time for the North to realise that enough is enough.
Andy Burnham
The North has experienced a thousand years of exploitation by the South, beginning in 1066, when a Southern hierarchy was established, and then the ban on Northern universities in the 1600s. This lack of universities meant the North then turned to industry, which was privatised or destroyed under Thatcher in the 1980s. More recently, there has been huge mismanagement of Northern transport links under conservative governments. Ultimately, what is the North left with? The answer to that is poverty levels unseen across Northern Europe.
"Ultimately, Northern Independence should be decided by the people living in the North"
The North has a GDP of around £489 billion, making it the 27th-largest economy in the world, between Sweden (26th) and Israel (28th). The North also has a population of 16 million, making it the 74th most populous country, larger than Belgium, Portugal, Sweden and many other EU countries. Clearly, the North is sufficient to be recognised as an independent country, but the argument should focus less on functionality and more on identity. People in the Northeast of England have as much of an attachment to that region as the Welsh are to their country (48% say they have a “very strong” attachment to the region), yet we refer to the Welsh as a ‘country’ that has a devolved parliament, whilst the North are at the mercy of Westminster.
Ultimately, Northern Independence should be decided by the people living in the North (including the 3 regions: the Northwest, the Northeast, and Yorkshire and the Humber), but if past polls and referendums are all we have to go by, I think we are a long way from it. The 2004 referendum on a Northeastern regional assembly saw 78% vote no, although this was at the height of New Labour, when the country felt united. Now, the country is more divided than ever. I think the people of the North's patience is wearing thin, with no signs of levelling up; the next logical step is devolution and ultimately independence.