X Close

England has always been two nations The ancient North-South divide has been exposed once again under the Covid-19 pandemic

Somewhere or other in the North. Photo by English Heritage/Heritage Images/Getty Images

Somewhere or other in the North. Photo by English Heritage/Heritage Images/Getty Images


October 14, 2020   5 mins

The Covid epidemic has, we learn from every media outlet this last week, reignited the North-South divide in England, threatening the Prime Minister’s election-winning promise to “level up” the North. There is a danger, said one northern Labour spokesman on Radio 4, that the disease might return us to the “days of Margaret Thatcher and the Miners’ Strike”, she being widely considered the ruthless author of the North-South divide.

But she wasn’t, of course — she merely expressed it. It was especially bitter in her day because a century of political warfare came to a head. For a hundred years, ever since the dawn of democracy with the Third Reform Act, British politics had been all about whether the industrial North (Liberal, then Labour) could forge alliances with the Celts to outgun the almost impregnable Tory bloc of the English South.

On the surface, Thatcher was defeating the miners of Northern England, Wales and Scotland in the name of modernity: what she was really doing was re-establishing the absolute dominance of the English South within England — restoring the way things had always been until the Industrial Revolution muscled up the North. The North-South divide within England wasn’t caused by Thatcher, nor even by the Industrial Revolution itself. It has existed since before England was England.

When the legions of the Emperor Claudius invaded in 43 AD, the limit of the tribes in Britannia who already made their own coins closely follow the line of the Jurassic Divide (marked by the purple line), where the fertile lime and chalk soils of the south-eastern quadrant of Britannia give way to far, far older igneous rocks and shales. At the height of Roman Britannia in around 300 AD, the limits of their villa civilisation also correspond almost exactly to this line.

The fact is that geology (better soils) climate (warmer weather) and location (being closer to the new ideas and great markets of the continent) conspire uniquely in favour of the South. If geography is fate, then it is nowhere more so than in England. And so, when the English themselves conquered and re-named England, they inherited this timeless divide along with everything else.

Our first historian, the Venerable Bede, repeatedly notes that the English are split into northerners and southerners. In 735 AD, the Papacy signed off on the division of the English Church into York and Canterbury. Athelstan briefly united the land in 927AD — but by now much of the North was firmly settled by Scandinavians and unity was only skin-deep: when the Vikings came back at the end of the 10th century, they found (as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle laments) a ready welcome in the North, crippling English resistance and finally enabling the total annexation of England by Cnut in 1016.

And then came the Normans. Harold was ready to hit William the moment he landed, but when Harald of Norway landed in the North, there was nothing for it but to race up to confront him: the Northerners would (and some did) rise up for a Viking pretender at the drop of a hat, feeling more kinship with Scandinavians than with the Godwins of Wessex. Harold beat Harald, but then had to face William with a hastily-gathered new army. The North-South divide doomed England to centuries of French-speaking rule.

So long as the new elite stayed a French-speaking caste, they gave England its first real cultural and political unity. But as they became Anglicised, so the old divide reappeared. By 1276, chivalric heralds were treating England North by Trent (citra aquam de Trente ex parte boriali) as a separate division, with its own King at Arms. The medieval universities of Oxford and Cambridge divided their student bodies into Australes and Boreales,  with the Trent again the border.

By the late 14th century, the elite were all speaking English and acting like good old-fashioned English warlords again: in 1398, at Nottingham, Richard II threatened the men of Londoun, and of xvii shires lyying aboute (in other words, Southern England) that if they didn’t pay him a vast sum, he wolde gadre a greet [h]ost forto destroie thaym.

In 1405 the Percys and the Mortimers seriously proposed dividing England permanently into northern and southern realms. Fifty years later, their descendants were central players in the Wars of the Roses, in which the rules of Anglo-Norman chivalry were permanently abandoned, and whose line-up quickly focussed into Northerners and Welshmen vs Southerners and  Westerners.  At the battle of Towton in 1461, 20,000 Englishmen out of a population of under three million were hacked to death at close quarters on a single afternoon because both Northerners and Southerners (who could barely understand one another’s English) gave battle determined to offer no quarter.

The new Tudor dynasty seemed to settle things because they were able to join the muscle of their native Wales with the power of the South: the North had no chance against this alliance. The Reformation nailed down the political and religious hegemony of the South by brute force against the Pilgrimage of Grace (1536) and the Northern Rebellion (1569), when Elizabeth’s Privy Council warned her: “North of Trent men know no other Prince but only a Percy or a Neville”.

But the question was reopened with the accession of James I and the attempt to annex Ireland: now, the North could hope for alliances with the Celts against the overweening Southerners. This was the central motor of the Civil War, the fundamental issue which drove Britons to kill other Britons in greater numbers, proportionately, than the Germans did in the First World War: was the South to rule the British Isles, or would a Royal league of Celts and Northerners be able to defy it? Only by playing the ultimate high-risk game — radicalising ordinary Southerners by announcing that they were God’s agents — was Cromwell able to win the day.

After the Glorious Revolution, Englishmen gratefully abandoned ideology as, once again, the issue seemed settled. First Great Britain, then the United Kingdom, were formed by a united British Isles elite whose cultural identity was centred on the South — or rather, on the right bits of it, i.e. central London, Bath and Brighton, and the rural Home Counties. Then the Industrial Revolution, during which geology for once favoured the North, revived its fortunes: previously the fortress of Catholicism, the North now expressed its non-Southern-ness by embracing the stripped-down Rites and flattened hierarchies of Non-Conformism. At the peak of the United Kingdom’s industrial pre-eminence, the Chartist movement tried one last time to revive Northern political resistance, even attempting to create an alternative Parliament in Manchester. They failed.

But then, in 1884, the masses (who had never been asked about the creation of the United Kingdom) got votes. The Celts immediately began to vote either openly (the Irish) or implicitly (the Scots and Welsh) for nationalist agendas; but so, in their own way did the English. Immediately, the Southern English formed a virtually impregnable Tory bloc, while the Northerners voted otherwise, and looked for alliances (often blatantly tactical or even downright cynical) with the Celts, to outgun them. That is the entire story of our politics in the democratic era, and it merely replicates the sides, and the tactics, of the Civil War itself.

In 2019, Boris Johnson finally embraced the destiny manifest since 1885 by admitting that the UK was a political impossibility in the democratic era and transforming the Conservative and Unionist Party into the English National Party in all but name. It was, by general agreement, his oft-repeated promise to “level up” the North — to treat it, at last, as a genuinely equal part of England — that won him his election. The appeal did what nationalism does: it persuaded people whose lives are actually very different that they somehow share a common interest.

It won’t last. The way in which the Covid-19 epidemic has so swiftly and easily fitted into the age-old language of the North-South divide reveals, once again, that whatever kings may want, or would-be Prime Ministers may promise, England remains as split as in Bede’s day, by forces which, in one way or another, have always seemed beyond anybody’s control.


James Hawes’s The Shortest History of Germany is out in over 20 countries. The Shortest History of England is just out.

 

jameshawes2

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

25 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Trevor Law
Trevor Law
4 years ago

Sadly my knowledge of English history is too meagre to allow me to form any sort of judgement as to whether this picture is wholly faithful to reality. But for me, it is quite brilliant and should be true, even if it isn’t! Thank you.

Stanley Beardshall
Stanley Beardshall
4 years ago

I’m old now, but remember, as a young student at Manchester university, being informed by a lecturer that “there are only two kinds of people: Englishmen and those who wish they had been born Englishmen”. He also shared the whole university’s belief that southerners were an effete and snobbish bunch….

Mark Goodwin
Mark Goodwin
4 years ago

That must have been a long time ago. It seems like no-one wants to claim to be English nowadays.

naillik48
naillik48
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Goodwin

What about the dinghy – borne 300 a day landing on the south coast ?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
4 years ago
Reply to  naillik48

Do they want to be Englishmen or just the perceived benefits of being in England?

Nathan Ramsden
Nathan Ramsden
4 years ago

This is fascinating history, and perhaps the author will be proven right when we look back, say, fifty years from now, but his reading of the contemporary politics is somewhat peculiar. The predominant divide in English politics today is between the graduate and non-graduate classes. Brexit, as well as the 2019 election, can be understood much more coherently in this framework than within that of a North-South divide. The Tories assembled a coalition of people dissatisfied with the cultural dominance of cities and university towns, aggrieved by the obstruction of Brexit, and horrified by what had been allowed to happen to the Labour Party. The levelling-up agenda was among the less salient election issues. Indeed, Labour had promised a great deal of levelling-up itself.

There is an element of geography to this, of course. England’s economy is driven by financial, legal and affiliated services, which form what is essentially a closed shop with the much-expanded university sector. Much of the public and third sector also works within this ecosystem. This concentrates power in cities, and since London dwarfs all other English cities, it makes London very powerful. The other major cities and university towns essentially are satellites to the London economy, and they are all interdependent. The rest of the country has been for the past ten years rediscovering an English nationalism as the only means of asserting itself.

It is plausible that Labour will form a government after the next election. And yet it is unlikely that they will reclaim significant sections of their former Red Wall, but rather that they will win in those parts of the graduate economy that have spilled over into the Home Counties and the suburbs of Northern cities.

Ray Hall
Ray Hall
4 years ago

Thanks for the article . A sort of application of Jared Diamond’s idea that geography and geology can be destiny .

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Ray Hall

Yes, and no.
Geography (weather) does play a certain role (think about food and the Med), but people can make themselves better. Singapore (70% chinese) vs. Malaysia (majority Muslim).

cjhartnett1
cjhartnett1
4 years ago

Bit silly , bit of a stretch to say that Boris’ efforts to bring the north up to speed with London , won him the election
Not at all. We wanted Brexit and to punish the labour liberal quislings and appeasers who’d tried to prevent our 2016 wishes from being enacted
And , good though your history is; the Covidiocy of today is no north south thing. There’s no jobs, wealth or support for a global new order in the north, and Boris can hardly put London into lockdown, seeing as the elites all live there, and your ethnic boroughs know that all of this is crap . As indeed do ours in Birmingham and Manchester too. And there’s no possible honest media portrayal of the wanton righteous contempt for Boris and his ignored, random guidelines. They’re not adhered to in any but the media friendly parts of our cities. BLM free passes for the rest of us.

Andrew Baldwin
Andrew Baldwin
4 years ago

Very interesting article indeed. I had nursed the idea of turning the UK into a true federation by giving the English Home Nation its own parliament. If James Hawes is right, it would be better to create two parliaments for England, one for the South and one for the North. A Southern English entity would not dominate the UK federation as much as an English entity would and would still not be an overgoverned federation. (There would be just five regional parliaments; Canada, with a smaller population, has 10 provinces and three territories.) I would still like to expand the federation to include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (seven or eight regional parliaments), which would in a small way also help to reduce the danger of dominance by any one federal entity.

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
4 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Baldwin

I would go further and taking London as the measure…10 million or so…split the country across the old Roman and medieval *national* boundaries (which are pointless really) and (tongue in cheek to illustrate the point) go back to the pre-Vicking era to find trans border entities that actually have 21st Century economic interests.

An Edinburgh to Humber (Northumbria) would have that London sized population and some heft…along with a Strathclyde from Glasgow to Manchester…and Liverpool and North wales, Midlands, east Midland and so on.

In the 21st century the more rural areas could make up one federal entity, separated geographically but far more united in underlying interests.

Any federal structure for the UK fails if based on the medieval lines, Balkanising the island would permanently harm future propsperity and in so many other ways…it fails if England must remain as now, and it fails if the constituent entities are not of a size similar to London…which in effect is a global super city that happens to be located here.

These large entitiies could combine *against* London where necessary much more effectively, and happily would not embed either the nascent xenophobia that the purely Scottish and Welsh settlements are creating (as they are too small to countervail) or even that *North Vs South* thing that other proposals do.

I think a federal UK that transcending the narrower nationalism of that medieval border settlement (which is essentially Roman) could be a very powerful, innovative and throughly modern iteration of Britain for a 21st Century Post-Brexit Britain.

Richard Middleton
Richard Middleton
4 years ago

The ‘reopening’ of the North-South divide wouldn’t be anything to do with Labour politicians trying to reaffirm the North as Labour and the south as Conservative, in order to take back the ‘Red Wall’, would it?

Dave Smith
Dave Smith
4 years ago

One of the many things I have done is to act as a courier for American buyers. That was in the 80s. I had to go to all parts. To do my job properly but I was always wary of the North. That is anywhere north of Warwickshire and Leics. There were often misunderstandings and sometimes it was not easy to smooth things over. The south was no problem neither the West nor Ireland. Nor was Normandy funnily enough.
Most of my clients were from the Southern states and did not like what they saw as abrupt rudeness . They liked us southerners. Quieter and more talkative and not so difficult if things did not go their way. Also the tendency in the north to think a hard bargaining attitude verging on rudeness was the only way used to grate on many. . We are different people and this is a most interesting take on it.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago

Levelling down is not going to work. BoJo, BSing aside, has no money. W. Germany has transferred c.€2 trillion (c.65bn a year) to E. Germany over 30 years. It did that thanks to
– government debt (it doubled during the 90s)
– new taxes (solidarity tax)
– reasonable economic growth (its GDP per capita has more doubled during the same period)

Let’s say that UK GOV decided to transfer £30 billion a year for the next 20 years -that is £600b. Where is the money?

Neil John
Neil John
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Travelling from North to South I’d say they’ve been investing heavily in the North for years, the South’s roads are awful by comparison, much of the BBC has been moved to Manchester, but as ever it’s easier to claim your hard done by as a Northern Labour politician to create hatred for the Tory South.

Christopher Thompson
Christopher Thompson
3 years ago
Reply to  Neil John

Salford, not Manchester (it matters).

Paul Salveson
Paul Salveson
4 years ago

A good article but maybe more on what is happening now (and over the last 10 years) would have helped – e.g. the emergence of regionalist groups and parties in the North of England. There needs to be political expression given to Northern identity, but one that isn’t insular and reactionary. It isn’t about hating/disliking anyone. Personally, I feel more in common with the Scotland and the Scots than with the South of England. And I’m not the only one…

Stephen Griffiths
Stephen Griffiths
4 years ago

The North is already pushing back against the liberal political vision generated in the South. The Brexit vote result was the North’s signal to the country that there is an English identity which they are willing to protect at all costs.

Paul Hunt
Paul Hunt
4 years ago

This is why I read unHerd, good old dose of reality from the history books when a few men in silly dresses sorted everything out. I’d disagree with the view of the 20th Century is North-South though, there are always vast Blue swathes of rural Yorkshire, Cumbira and Lancs, particularly in the heartland Viking counties, whilst the home counties and Norfolk voted overwhelmingly for Clem Atlee and 1997 was the first time in a long time you couldn’t walk from John O Groats to Berwick through only Tory seats.
‘Democracy’ has brought complex and constantly flowing demographics into play that can be swung by an election promise, but are fundamentally about people on the ground making a gut call, hence why polls are so often so terribly wrong.

Jessica Alliston
Jessica Alliston
4 years ago

It might only be a matter of time before localism takes the shape of the old divide. For instance: https://www.yorkshireparty….

stephensjpriest
stephensjpriest
4 years ago

Great Barrington Declaration co-author

Dr Jay Bhattacharya, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration: “The current lockdown strategy seeks herd immunity. That is the end point. The question is how much death and suffering will there be in the meantime?”

stephensjpriest
stephensjpriest
4 years ago

Great Barrington Declaration co-author:

Dr Jay Bhattacharya, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration: “The current lockdown strategy seeks herd immunity. That is the end point. The question is how much death and suffering will there be in the meantime?”

By the way there is appalling clip of Hancock dismissing the Great Barrington Declaration
14 Oct 2020
youtube watch?v=ivVuUqLDqAk

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
4 years ago

I think one thing I would question is the image of a kind of Tory ruling elite redoubt in the South when the Labour Party seems to have become basically a North London Supper Club without any real connexion to what used to be knownas it’s Northern or Welsh, or Scottish *Heartlands*.

Having gone down some kind of theoretical neo-marxist or post-marxist or whatever-marxist rabbit hole they not only seem unable to recognise what they used to call their core vote, and vice versa, but in all honesty to not even like them.

I also think left out of the analysis is the vastly greater social mobility nowadays in which millions of *northerners* go down and live in the South and millions of Southerners head North and West as well (notwithstanding the glitches in this caused by the crackers abolition of Grammar Schools by Anthony Crossland).

I also think that in the Thatcher part there was no mention of the Urban Development and Enterprise zones that created what these days are usually recognised as the *iconic* areas of cities..the Albert Dock and riverside at Liverpool, the Quayside at newcastle and Gateshead, the Stockton riverside etc etc.

Nor the fact that *The North* or the *South* aren’t coherent places either, for example in the early years of this century all four political parties, most local media, most employers organisations and local councils, quangos and charities were overwhelmingly in favour of a North East devolved assembly and campaigned energetically for it… *A geordie Parliament* modelled on the then not yet discredited Scottish one.

In that campaign , a footnote being that Dominic Cummings was an influential figure in the grouping opposing this, the vote eventually went 78 against 22 almost 4-1 against.

The main reason was Cummings and the campaign leader John Elliott (a regional businessman) and the inflatable white elphant they took to veery media event and interview latched onto that idea of the *geordie Parliament* and turned it into ‘yet another Newcastle talkiign shop for failed politicians’, which appealed to the vast majority of people who don’t see themselves as Geordies in the North east…and see Geordieland as the ruling redoubt.

It was interesting that Blair, Kennedy, Howard and the local advocates had such a tin ear for the reality of the fissiparous North East (let alone North) that what started as a cakewalk ended in a rout.

But nobody in Mackemland, (Sunderland) or the Smoggies (Teessiders) let alone Durham County and Northumberland (The Wild Wannies) ever really wanted to split away from the Tynesiders, they just realise there is a power dynamic and it demands touches on the tiller now and again.

Jon Walmsley
Jon Walmsley
4 years ago

Turns out history can tell you as much about the present as it does the past, because the past is found in the present.

Indra Fms
Indra Fms
1 year ago

Fantastic post

Thanks