Create the conditions for Northern (England) seperatism

libbrit

Banned
..........starting some time pre 1900 (possibly a LONG time pre 1900)

My reasoning is this.

The North as a general concept has many of the aspects of a seperate identity-a sense of difference from the south, various social and economic issues unique to its part of the world, and various dedicated organisations and political set ups (the English regions of the North West, Yorkshire and the Humber and the North East come to mind)

In the past, the north has been considered sufficiently different from the south to have a form of proto devolution (the Council of the North, which governed everything between the Scottish border and the River Trent), so its not unprecedented. Couple that with the fact that the north was ones the heart of English catholicism during the reformation, and was the heart of English industrialisation during the industrial reviolution and arguably its a potent mix which could be exploited by some sort of northern seperatism.

So the issue is, first, define the north-does it include the midlands for example? To anyone who considers themselves a northerner, arguably anything south of where they live is `the south`, and to any southerner, id be surprised if they didnt consider Birmingham and the Midlands as the north? So where do we draw the line?

Then, once the line is drawn, how do we create a plausible chain of events, historically and politically, to create a plausible seperate northern identity and events therein?

Thoughts?
 
What constitutes north and south differs on where you come from.
I come from Lancing, so for me anything above Watford could be considered north. The same way some people from Newcastle will see anything below Middlesbrough to be South.
The best way to a real separatist movement is to have some real hostility between north and south. With a bigger wealth gap, we could have southerners who see northerners as work-shy and benefit scrounging. Maybe have northerners see southerners as poncey rich folk who are out of touch with reality.
A good example is Spain, where Catalan separatism has become very popular. From what I read, many politicians have blamed that area for a big part of the recession and it has bought along a similar attitude among people who blame that group (and others) for creating problems and holding them back.
I sometimes see such animosity here towards Scotland. My dad often sees the Scottish people as scrounging since they get free prescriptions and such, especially when we don't get that here.
 
As far as where the north begins/ends, it's a very subjective thing.

Indisputable, the ancient counties of Northumberland, Durham, Westmorland, Cumberland, Lancashire, Yorkshire and Cheshire are the North. The next layer down is the difficulty. The Nottinghamshire/Derbyshire coalfield and the people there have much in common with those in Yorkshire, but other parts of these counties may be less so. Similarly, many in Stoke identify more with Manchester than with Birmingham. The latter of these cities is not Northern in my mind.

As far as a PoD... Maybe if the Tripartite Indenture was successful, and some sort of separation lasting a century or two was to occur, this could foster feelings of difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Indenture

Then again, according to the very limited page on the genocide (I'm sure it used to have a map) Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire are Northern!
 
The British Army had a Northern Command that covered everything from the Scottish border all the way down to Northamptonshire. Having said that the command only covered the Eastern half of the North ie Northumberland, Durham, Gods Own, plus those Midlander counties...
Best way for this to work MIGHT be a successful Hardraada invasion with an agreement afterwards with that nasty William where HH keeps Northumbria and maybe Mercia with a capital at Jorvik and William the Bastard has the rest. Is that POD early enough?
 

Jonjo

Banned
Maybe northern england stays Catholic all throughout the reformation creating a religious divide and then feeling oppressed by the south? sort of like a reverse Ireland situation.
 

libbrit

Banned
The British Army had a Northern Command that covered everything from the Scottish border all the way down to Northamptonshire. Having said that the command only covered the Eastern half of the North ie Northumberland, Durham, Gods Own, plus those Midlander counties...
Best way for this to work MIGHT be a successful Hardraada invasion with an agreement afterwards with that nasty William where HH keeps Northumbria and maybe Mercia with a capital at Jorvik and William the Bastard has the rest. Is that POD early enough?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Indenture

my thoughts are to include some of all of your ideas (a history of stronger and more long lasting than OTL invasions of the north so as to give it something of a seperate sense of history)

1-As the reformation takes hold, Catholic resistance, always strongest in the north, is slightly stronger,and never entirely broken, creating a real religious division between north and south.
and
2-The Council of the North, established by the Yorkists, becomes more of a hot bed for Catholic, and when it is abolished by the Puritans during the civil war, general non puritan, Anglo Catholic, anglican oppossition

3-Scottish raids across the North are generally stronger and more violent, allowing for the North to view their southern masters as `not up to the job` of protecting them

4-As part of the restoration of Charles II, post Cromwell, he issues a declaration promising the north that, in exchange for supporting him, he will `restore their liberties` (ie, restore the council of the north and their limited sense of self government and unique institiutions)

5-The Jacobite rebellions and the progress of Bonnie Prince Charlie through the North of Englanc is much smoother (although ideally, still defeated eventually) because of his catholicism. Making the north a fighting ground between Jacobites and government forces-creating in the north both a sense that London and the London hierarchy/monarchy doesnt really represent them, and resentment for the inevitable violence and destruction carried out in the north of England.

Basically more prolonged Jacobite wars, with the North much more pro Jacobite.

6-As Industrialisation sets in, The limited powers of the Council of the North-broadly from what i can gather, admistrative, evolve to include what we today would call `planning`-allowing the council to direct economic and planning developments somewhat its own way, creating a beureucratic difference between north and south.

As industralisation continues, and the social dislocation kicks in, the slums of the great northern cities can create grievances for the north to blame on London policies, and allow for a different political culture-more socialism etc. Basically, as in OTL the north becomes a heartland for Labour, this xx10 but with an element of regional identity as well.

7-As the Great Reform Acts are implemented, the Council of the North, still fairly powerless talking shop with all the powers of an over sized county council, becomes an elected forum for regional grievance

8-During the 1980s, as industrial decline sets in and Thatcher assault on traditional northern industries kicks in, the realisation, as in Scotland, that the north on the whole didnt vote for Thatcher, causes an increase in demands for some sort of self government. Within the established parties, a `Northern Leage` develops.

At the same time, late 1990s, as Welsh and Scottish Devolution is implemented, so too is Northern England devolution. The Council of the North is given primary legislative powers as per the Scottish parliaments, is re organsed as a full legislative body with a First Minister and a government.
 

libbrit

Banned
Maybe northern england stays Catholic all throughout the reformation creating a religious divide and then feeling oppressed by the south? sort of like a reverse Ireland situation.


see my last post

incidentally people, this is what im talking about when i keep referring to The Council of the North

Council of the North

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

King's Manor, York — seat of the Council of the North after it was reinstated until 1641.


The Council of the North was an administrative body set up in 1472 by king Edward IV of England, the first Yorkist monarch to hold the Crown of England[1] Its purpose was to improve government control and economic prosperity, to benefit the entire area of Northern England. Edward's brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester (later Richard III) was its first Lord President. Throughout its history, the council was always located within Yorkshire, first at Sheriff Hutton Castle and then Sandal Castle, before being re-located to King's Manor, York.

After the Wars of the Roses and the emergence of the Tudor dynasty, there were some troubles in the area in relation to the English Reformation, the Church of England's split from Rome and the dissolution of the Monasteries under Henry VIII. In the North, most people remained staunch supporters of the Catholic faith and were deeply unhappy with the changes; the people rose up in York creating a 30,000 strong rebel Catholic army carrying crosses and banners depicting the Holy Wounds; this became known as the Pilgrimage of Grace.

Henry VIII's army was not strong enough to fight them, and so Thomas Howard was sent to negotiate peace with rebel leader Robert Aske. It was promised that the rebels would be pardoned and a parliament would be held in York to discuss their demands; the rebels, convinced that the monasteries would be re-opened, returned to their homes. However, as soon as they had disbanded, Henry had the rebel leaders arrested and executed 200 of the people involved, including Aske, Lady Bulmer and the Abbots of the four largest monasteries in the North.
In 1530, the Council of the North was re-instated in York as a means to govern the area at arms length. It had its own set of presidents who were generally earls, Church of England bishops and lords; some of whom were actually born in the North. By 1641 the Long Parliament had the Council abolished due to reasons relating to the Reformation, the Council was the chief support for Catholic Recusants and Anglicans.
Contents

[hide]
[edit] Origins

The reason for creating the Council of the North was the deteriorated state of Northern society since the Harrying of the North under the Normans.[citation needed] Edward and Richard continued to legislate and conduct government in the English language, which had started under Henry V. A probable contributory factor was their experience among their subjects whilst at Middleham Castle had created a mutual respect between them. Die-hard Yorkists did not forget this when Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel appeared. This local loyalty did not save Richard from desertion, when the Earl of Richmond rose against him. (Coincidentally, Richmond Castle had seniority over Middleham Castle!)
Henry VIII reorganised the Council. He placed it under his son; Henry Fitzroy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset with its seat at Sheriff Hutton. Following the suppression of the Pilgrimage of Grace, from 1539, it met at the former house of the Abbot of St. Mary's Abbey, York (founded by the Lord of Richmond) in the centre of that city; after the dissolution of the abbey, the building had been retained by the king who formally allocated it to the Council. The building is nowadays called the King's Manor.
The Council was abolished by the Long Parliament in 1641, because it was the chief support for Catholic Recusants and Anglicans. After the English Restoration, the Secretary of State for the Northern Department was formed and influenced industry.
[edit] List of Presidents of the Council of the North

 
Shrewsbury

The best chance for an independent Northern state was the battle of Shrewsbury. Glendyr was planning an independent Wales, and Hotspur was planning an independent northern state. If they had won at Shrewsbury, how long would an independent Northhumberland have lasted?
Adifferent Shrewsbury would also butterfly Joan of Arc.
 
why not going for a slightly less succesful Norman Conquest (and aftermatch) leaving the Anglo-Scandinavian north, at least at the start, independent in all but name? ...

Say failing to get a succes out of Harrying of the North, either due to less succesful William, or more succesful Edgar.
 

libbrit

Banned
Im not necessarilly thinking of an independent Northern State (what would that be called incidentally), but simply a region of the North of England that has considerably less in common with the south, and thus more willingness to be seperatist in outlook, than in OTL (even nowadays, the North and the people who feel Northern certainly feel very different from those `down south`)
 
One could legitimately say that thats otl. Its called scotland.

What is the language of scotland? English. Where is, and always has been, the powerbase of the country? In the English speaking lowlands.

In some ways, scotland of otl is a descendant of the northern half of old northumbria.
 
even nowadays, the North and the people who feel Northern certainly feel very different from those `down south

This is overstated. Only a tiny number of Southerners are bankers working in London while a similarly small number of Northerners are poor ex-miners. I reckon the median income person in Bristol and York have pretty similar lives and would feel like they came from the same background if you put them in a room together. Certainly they'd have more in common than people from, say, Northern and Southern Illinois.
 

libbrit

Banned
This is overstated. Only a tiny number of Southerners are bankers working in London while a similarly small number of Northerners are poor ex-miners. I reckon the median income person in Bristol and York have pretty similar lives and would feel like they came from the same background if you put them in a room together. Certainly they'd have more in common than people from, say, Northern and Southern Illinois.

As someone brought up in the north, i can tell you that most people from the north ive ever spoken to about it would agree that you never feel more northern than when you are down south (and dont forget, i live in Liverpool-a place with such a sense of its own identity, its people struggle to identify in any way with Manchester, a whole 30 miles away-so if Liverpudlians, a people with a sense of seperatism to give Alex Salmond a run for his money, feel a sense of distinct northerness, im pretty sure its even stronger with other people).

Northerners have a certain different outlook on life (it may be anecdotal, but its not for nothing that, for example, stand up performers or theatre actors say they view northern audiences as warmer, friendlier and more engaged. Northerners themselves notice the diffence in sociability north v south, but also there are genuine more tangible differences-the north has simply a different history than the south-Scandinavian, Viking as opposed to Saxon then Norman-not to mention the Harrying of the North which was one of the first documented Holocausts, from which the North didnt truly emerge for about 300 years-that and the clear religion divide; catholicism was always stronger up north post reformation. And of course there is a tendency across much of the north to vote labour whereas in much of the south except parts of London, Labour voting is very rare-a clear political division

The north has had a totally different economic history in the last few centuries-particularly when it comes to industrialisation and de industrialisation.

If you want blatant unavoidable proof of the differences-look at the stats. Northerners are more likely to be earning less, employed less, and with shorter life spans.
 
Last edited:

libbrit

Banned
You have it the wrong way round, the Scots are destined to rule all of Britain after all, so said Cináed (mac Ailpín) ;)


Thats just asking for another Time Line-"what if James VI had just had Holyrood Palace decorated when he became king of England and sniffilly refused to move down to London"

Ill call it "Ive just had the bloody carpets washed-"aaam noo mooving doon therrrrrre" Time Line" (i have no idea how he would have spoken in TTL, so i went to Groundskeeper Willie)

Edinburgh becomes the political capital of the British isles? (or more likely the English are very soon outraged by their absentee king and replace him)
 
Thats just asking for another Time Line-"what if James VI had just had Holyrood Palace decorated when he became king of England and sniffilly refused to move down to London"

Ill call it "Ive just had the bloody carpets washed-"aaam noo mooving doon therrrrrre" Time Line" (i have no idea how he would have spoken in TTL, so i went to Groundskeeper Willie)

Edinburgh becomes the political capital of the British isles? (or more likely the English are very soon outraged by their absentee king and replace him)

I don't know much about the politics of the time, although it seems like it would be a decent read. There are some pretty good 'Scotland kicks England when it's down' TLs on here and elsewhere as well, A Scotsman in Egypt being the classic case of Scots-Get-Drunk-And-Accidentally-Create-A-Hyperpower.
 
Top