Talk:North–South divide in England

Less economically successful
I added this page because the original article North-South divide seemed to contain two different North-South divides. while the north-south divide in the UK is economically based (like the global one), it's clear that the articles are talking about a different north and south. For instance, in this article the North is the less economically successful than the South, unlike in the first article. The North-South divide article is not on general splits between the north of a place and the south, but rather on the specific situation of socio-economic differences between different sets of countries. Rs564 16:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Public expenditure favours the South now does it?
I cited a reference pointing out that more is spent in the North, both overall and in relation to the amount it is taxed, yet apparently: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/jan/25/money.northsouthdivide Claims that more houses are being built in the South (not talking about relative population increases at all), please explain more how apparently government spending favours the South?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.109.115 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The linked Daily Mail article does not support the statement that overall spending per person is greater in the North, only that it is higher as a percentage of tax income. I am adding two further links to clear up that spending is higher on infrastructure in the South, and higher on welfare in the North (principally due to higher unemployment).
 * - Thomasf2811 (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nottigham
this article doesn't seem very good, I mean since when was nottingham far south?! nottingham is only barely in the midlands, it's pretty much northern

Could do with less words like "amusingly" and "paranoia" Justdig 10:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nottingham is in no way part of the North. It might be North Midlands but it is Midlands nonetheless. The North starts with South Yorkshire and (for most people) Cheshire. Places below that are Midlands, strong similarities - yes but the same region - no.GordyB 19:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely with you GordyB! We northerners are really defensive about what's north and what's not, and a Geordie or Mackem will politely suggest you "f**k off" if you class anywhere south of Leeds as north.  (P.S. a Geordie or a Mackem would swear...we're very brash people: please don't be throwing "bans" around because I'm being "matter-of-fact").

Don't talk rubbish, you're saying Hull, Mancheter, Sheffield, Liverpool, Huddesfield, Preston, Bradford, etc are not in the North. I think someone from one of those places would politely suggest you "f**k off" if you said they're not northern. This is about the North-South divide, there are no "Midlands" where this article is concerned. You have north and you have south, it's not hard to understand. Marky-Son 15:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "There are no midlands"...are you being serious? There is no definitive line that says "north" on one side "south" on the other.  The midlands is/are the place where that north-south divide gradually appears.  Cambridge (as mentioned in the article), is midlands but on the south of the divide.  Derby, in the midlands but questionably on the north side of the divide.


 * Please quote the whole sentence, so as not to misrepresent me. "there are no "Midlands" where this article is concerned." I know very well there is a Midlands in England/Britain, and I know that Cambridge isn't in it. I suggest you brush up on your British regions knowledge. In this case, there is a dividing line between north and south, it's just debatable where this line falls. Derby is certainly north of the line.

This is an article about the North-South divide. Places such as Nottingham and Stoke-on-Trent are North of that divide. They have more in common with the North than the South. The Proffesor 16:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by having things "in common with the North (and) the South", but I imagine that you would accept that places like Alderley Edge, Wilmslow and Prestbury don't have much in common with Wigan or Bootle. Does that put Cheshire in the South? Poshseagull (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * People from Nottingham don't sound northern, I know that isn't a very good measuring stick but they seem like southerners to actual Northerners. There is certainly a grey area. I think the ancient kingdom of Northumbria is a good, rough outline of where the north "starts", but since there is no major works on the North-South divide then its hard to vertify. In any case, in real life situations the people know who is a northerner and who isn't, even if there is no way for the article to reflect that in a vertified way. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't believe that dope said anywhere south of Leeds is southern. I'm from Wigan, one of the most typical Northern towns you'll ever visit, although a little south of Leeds.

Nordic/Celtic origins
The area of this article that states "Indeed, it is thought most Northerners are actually descended from local Celtic tribes who were culturally anglicised, rather than being descended from Angles themselves." Channel 4 recently made (and aired) a programme wherein a mass DNA study was undertaken across the various regions of the British Isles. The result for the northeast genetically proved that the majority of northerners are actually descended from Angles and Danes NOT "local celtic tribes", as this article suggests. Therefore this section of the article is both wrong and misleading. I am going to remove this part of the article.

The article also states that the populations of the North of England are also more closely related to the Scots and Irish than southern England. The article did not initially mention the tens and thousands of Scots that migrated down to the major industrial cities of Newcastle and Sunderland (of which I am decended myself). The vast majority of Irish immigrants to the Sunderland/Newcastle area were also from Northern Ireland, a heavily Scots descended area. The same aforementioned programme aired on channel 4, also showed that the majority of the eastern Scots and Northwestern Scots are actually descended from Norwegian vikings, and not celts. These are the same areas (especially Eastern Scotland) that produced the migrants to the northeast of England, and therefore the same persons that influenced the genetic make up of the north (more specifically the northeast).

"It is now theorised the invading Angles, Saxons, and Jutes did not drive the indigeonous Celtic populations of modern day England into far off Cornwall, Wales and Scotland; rather, the local Celtic tribes most likely lived amongst and eventually inter-married with the Nordic settlers. DNA evidence weighs in heavy with this theory, but it is suggested through such evidence that the people of the North of England are proof positive of this intermingling theory." There is no evidence to suggest the Germanic and Celtic populations ever intermingled. There is a common misconception that the invading Saxons and Angles were a "ruling elite" (as in the case of the Roman invasion). This is not true. Especially in the case of Eastern and Southern England, where DNA evidence actually suggests the native celtic populations were driven in the extreme western fringes of the country. This is proven, genetically, linguistically and historically in documented records. This entire paragraph is riddled with inaccuracies, unsourced "evidence" and blatant and uninformed mistruths.

I will therefore correct and clarify this part of the article as fully as I can. SKC 15:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Have a look at this: Marky-Son 18:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You've cited the Scotsman? That anti-English, pro-Celtic paper?  Well done!  I'm still looking for the link to the Channel 4 information here matey, so I can't complain too much.  Seriously though, the Scotsman is the same paper that misquoted and exaggerated the Scots' want for independence and frequently bashes the English.  It would serve the Scotsman's ego well if the English turned out to be "Celtic". SKC 15:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Found a citation: teh programme is called The Face of Britain and you can read about it's results on the Channel 4 website. SKC 15:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely if they're stating how similar the English and Scottish are, they're supporting, rather than opposing the Union. Marky-Son 15:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The east-lowlands is pretty much English, Germanic, and not Celtic anyway. Anyway, what has genetics got to do with cultural divide? The Celts of pre-England were obviously assimilated into Germanic culture hence the language and cultural traits from Germanic peoples: how the Anglo-Saxons (e.g. the English as they called themselves thus and arguably have more of a right than modern English to be called this) taught language to these early people before tha advent of Christianity and good schooling is a mystery that geneticists have never fully explained...

...or maybe the similarity in genetics is due to the fact that the genetics of northern Europeans is really identical and these racists geneticist only label certain parts of DNA as Celtic and Germanic despite the fact that both of these are common in the western Germanic peoples and western Celtic and Romance people!

Anyway, genetics has nothing to do with the article. The south was culturally Saxon and Jutish whereas the north was culturally Anglican. Whether they were genetically Celtic is not important as genetics does not make a culture or even an ethnic group. 86.131.250.182 (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoever included the Celts in the north stuff is quite embarrassing in their ignorance. Anyone with any grasp of the history of England (and excluding recent Irish immigrants and the mentioned Scottish immigrants in the northeast)knows that the only areas where Celtic genes are at all significant are parts of Cumbria and parts of the West Country although some Devonians and Somerset people even overplay this). The very thorough survey from the University of Wales (of all places) found that of those who could trace their families back for a significant time in villages all Midland, Northern and South Eastern England were almost all far more closely linked to those from Scandinavia/northern Germany etc than those sharing this island but a few miles away over Offa's Dyke. SCotland is obviously more complicated because in the lowland the average 'Scot' is as likely to be Anglo-SAxon as a 'Celt'. The most truly English (ie the two waves of settlers in the fifth and the ninth and tenth century from Denmark, northern Germany and Holland) of the lot are those from the East and North - after all Anglish from Angles obviously meaning English and the North East being the original cradle of the English nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.64.40 (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced/Original Research
As long as this retains an unsourced map and anecdotal 'some people as far south as Nottinghamshire include themselves in the north' etc., it is a best unverififed and at worst original research. Robdurbar 13:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO rather accurate though. Midlanders who live in the North tend to identify as 'Southern' probably because that is how Northerners treat them. Midlanders who live in the South often identify as Northern for the same reason.GordyB 19:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Much of East Anglia"?
The East Anglia article pretty much clearly states that the borders of East Anglia are themselves undefined, so how can "much of East Anglia" be considered south when no-one's entirely sure what East Anglia itself is? Kinitawowi, who's never been sure whether he's from the north or the south and usually ends up answering "the east" (from Hunstanton, north-west Norfolk, which is on a dead-on latitude with Stoke) 18:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * East Anglia is similar to the East of England government region, is it not? 84.66.246.174 (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Similar but not-coterminous. I believe it's because there are strong local sentiments in the western part of the government region that the name "East Anglia" was not used. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In the East of England people don't tend to identify as either Northerners or Southerners. These terms represent stereotypes that are largely self-determined. In East Anglia we tend to view our identity as being from Norfolk, from Suffolk etc. (Being a Norfolk 'bor' or 'gal' would perhaps be a more authentic expression). In my personal experience Northerners are self-identifed and see being a 'Northerner' as a badge of cultural authenticity. I have never heard anyone self-proclaim their identity as a Southerner. Having spoken Northerners (since meeting my partner from Manchester) I strongly believe that 'being a Northerner' is a construct to express strong feelings of difference, solidarity and inverted snobbery against the perceived cultural weakness of those in the South of England. simonthebold (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A matter of perspective
As a native of Northumberland, indeed a Geordie (born almost within view of the Tyne - but that's another story), I always thought that we were The North, The Midlands were between Teesside and the M62, and anything below that was The South. Having lived in East Anglia for 19 years (and which I happen to think is in the south for the purpose of this argument - sorry, discussion), I still find it hard to divide England in terms of simply north and south. I now think that, from north to south, the Midlands start at about Chesterfield and the South at Milton Keynes (Daventry, for example, being The Midlands). Okay, here we go. From my perspective (and based on the people I know, as I think it is as much about the mentality of the people as it is the about the geography) the North-South Divide runs, from east to west, from The Wash above Kings Lynn, between Spalding and Peterborough, below Nottingham, Derby, Stoke and Crewe, above Whitchurch, to Wales. That's a bit different from the Bristol-Wash version, but I've always lived on the east coast so my perspective is a little different, I guess. Dommar 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand the uncertainties outlined above. The historic boundary of the North has always been the River Trent/Humber (north of which Queen Elizabeth I never dared set foot!) Obviously people in borderline counties like Notts can choose whichever allegiance to accept.

The East and West Midlands are economic regions and are displayed as such on government maps and statistics. There's no doubt where they lie.The Dark Ages term for the region (often rich and powerful) was Mercia, which meant 'Marches' or borders i.e between Northumbria and the southern kingdoms. Lincolnshire was a part of the old East Midlands rugby team, just as Warwickshire was part of the West Midlands.

Oxford and Cambridge are often thought of as part of a triangle with London, and there are many connections. BUT that's just the universities. Oxford has plenty of industry and rough council estates too. Cambridge outside the uniiversity is not an impressive place. Incidentally being far from the sea, both cities endure much longer sub-zero temperatures than any northernn city and the wind across the flat fens is fearful.

Oh, and Londoners, (whose knowledge of where anything north is less than slight), normally refer to Watford as the cut-off point, i.e. outer London. Watford Gap is in Northamptonshire.

The various North/South lines drawn and mentioned above bear an uncanny resemblance to the boundaries of the Roman province of Britannia - i.e. the Engliah lowlands, easily subdued and 'civilised'. Beyond that lay the larger Roman military zone i.e the mountainous UK (two third of the UK is mountain) very hard or impossible to hold down and a constant trouble to the occupiers.

It's fascinating subject. Try my North and South A-Z on London v the North on

http://www.myersnorth.co.uk

I hope it will amuse, though it's deadly serious of course. I should perhaps mention that I am from the far North.

Bandalore (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I found it very funny and true-to-life. Epa101 (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Map
Someone seems to created a map showing the North and the South seperated by one single horizontal line, this would be correct if the definition of North-South in the UK was based solely on geography, however, I have managed to find a source that gives a much better idea of the North-South divide on a map8 Stevvvv4444 (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the current map is rather strange, seeing as even most people from the south coast regard Oxford as "southern" yet it is in the north on the current map. The map that you suggested seems better, but I doubt that there would be a consensus on this issue. It is never clear to me whether proponants of the north-south divide actually think about Cornwall and the far south-west in their theories, or whether it is just bundled in there. I have never known a Cornish person expressly adopt a common identity with London or the south-east. Epa101 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oxford people think of themselves as being in the midlands and there is considerable resentment at being lumped in with the south for both BBC and ITV administrative reasons. Anyone from Birmingham northwards will consider Oxford to be in the south of course. --Ef80 (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfair political stereotypes
The suggestion that the majority of northerners are Socialists, while everybody else are Conservatives is perhaps one of the reasons there is a UK divide in the first place. Ignorance. Taking a look at this map of the 2005 election for example there is a vast swathe of Conservatives in the North and East Ridings of Yorkshire, which stretches across into Lancashire and even goes further north. The most Northernly Scottish are neither, since in the far north there are many Lib Dems. I think this needs to be recognised before we randomly lump in two out of the three Ridings of Yorkshire that are Conservative, as if everyone in Yorkshire is a red. Its not even a question of affluence since there are many working class Conservatives in the North and also champaign socialists in the South (Ken Livingston anyone?) - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the north-south divide is just urban-rural really. You see this with politics, as the rural areas [excluding Scotland, Wales and Cornwall] vote Tory whereas the urban areas vote Labour.  This article does mention this a few times.  I think that it needs a clean-up, as there is much unverified material here.  Epa101 (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Very true in fact the rural areas of the North are probably the most politically Conservative areas in the whole of England the other main rural area of England (the South-West)has never been as monolithically Tory always having a large Liberal vote and the most Tory areas now are the coastal areas full of retired people from outside the South-West.The whole idea of a north-south divide in anything but economic terms is a lazy and to be honest untrue concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.64.40 (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Image:Northsouth.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Northsouth.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Asdfasdf1231234 ( talk ) 23:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference 9
Reference 9 is connected to the statement which says that government expenditure favours The South, yet if you read the article it is actually saying that government expenditure favours the North, in transferring wealth from the South-East to the North and the regions. Additionally the reference article itself is actually a blog, on the website of a recognised (liberal) think-tank, but it is a blog none the less, under my understanding this means that we can't really use it as a source, even if it did support the comment it is meant to support, which id doesn’t. Unless anyone has and strong objections and rationale as to why both the reference and the section that states that government spending is said to benefit the south then I will remove this in a few days. MattUK (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland and map
I have again removed the claim that the "North-South divide in the United Kingdom" relating to Northern Ireland should be a see-also link to The Troubles. Firstly, the "South" ie the 26 counties of Ireland, are not part of the United Kingdom. Secondly it was never about the South vs the North in terms of the divide, it was the divided population of Northern Ireland itself. Thirdly all this is completely unsourced as well, it is original research by an editor to compare the recognised North-South divides in the United Kingdom with "The Troubles".

Also as the text makes no reference to the "Severn-Wash line", the "Severn-Trent line" or the "Tees-Exe line" I do not see how it is relevant to this article. O Fenian (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is more than one North-South divide in the United Kingdom that is shown by the image image:North-south in UK.png and image image:English North-South divide.png only shows England so belongs to the North-South divide in England part of the article!

And it is the divided province of Ulster that that "The Troubles". People calling it "Northern Ireland" leaving out Cavan, Donegal, and Monaghan also from the divided province of Ulster that are in the north of Ireland.(image:Irish North-South divide.png) and People calling Ireland "Southern Ireland" witch makes it a North-South divide in Ireland and as part of Ulster is in the UK it belongs on this article! Mr Taz (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * all this is completely unsourced as well, it is original research by an editor to compare the recognised North-South divides in the United Kingdom with "The Troubles" Where are your sources? O Fenian (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If Mr Taz can find a source that refers to the Troubles in terms of a "north-south divide", then fine. But otherwise his addition of that link runs foul of WP:OR and/or WP:POV. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And ideally a source that compares that alleged divide with the ones in the article, or refers to "the economic and cultural differences". And as none of the lines on this recently introduced map are in the article, what relevance is it? It does not help the reader, it confuses them surely? O Fenian (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

John Prescott vs. Brian Sewell
- LOL! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What is going on, and what is this article about? - please discuss
Not only is the text of this article a mess (as was its predecessor North-South divide in the United Kingdom ), but the whole grouping of articles around this topic is a mess. I don't think recent unflagged moves and redirects have particularly helped, but setting that aside there needs to be a proper discussion here about how the issue can best be resolved - recognising, in my view, that there are valid arguments for one or more articles to exist to describe economic and cultural differences between the different parts of the UK, and/or the different parts of Great Britain, and/or the different parts of England. There are clear differences between "the north" and "the south" of England which justify an article. But, there is a problem that this article (currently called North-South divide (England) ) doesn't do that very well, and also (still) raises issues relating to Scotland and Wales. Personally I think this article should remain, with the Scotland and Wales bits taken out, but there then needs also to be a new (possibly quite short) article called something like North-South divide (Great Britain) to take those points on board. Or, we should go back to the old article North-South divide in the United Kingdom, take out any bits relating to Ireland, and rename that article North-South divide (Great Britain) - but, it would be difficult to get the right balance in that article between the "within England" issue and the Scotland and Wales issues - potentially very sensitive matters. I'm not sure of the best way forward, but can we have a discussion here without too many more unilateral moves and renamings? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought it was a mess too. Now I think it's better. The article was about the North-South divide in England, but titled with the United Kingdom; and because England and the UK are basically the same thing as we all know, a couple of bits for "Great Britain" had been appended. I don't think North-South for the whole island is a prominent way of thinking about the island, and thus don't think we will need an article about it. I've never heard of it myself ... constantly hear the English distinguishing themselves as "northerners" or "southerners" though. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

GOD HELP us..So England & The UK are pretty much the same thing are they???? Utter rubbish..


 * That's one perspective. However, there also refs (and statistics) which go UK-wide or GB-wide, and contrast southern England with the rest of the island (or, very occasionally, UK).  For example, for most of the 20th century the main political divisions in the UK (or, at least, GB) were between southern England (mostly Conservative) and "the rest" - northern England, Scotland and Wales, predominantly Labour.  Those patterns have changed a lot with the growth of nationalism in recent decades, and other factors, but they are still historically important and worthy of a reference within the GB (or UK) context.  Some residual mentions of those factors still remain in this article, even though it is now called ...(England).  Those factors are still worthy of being mentioned, and should be placed somewhere.  Where?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: The very first sentence of the very first version of this article, in 2005, read: "In the United Kingdom the term "North-South divide" is used to refer to the divide between the wealthy South East of England and the less affluent industrial areas of Scotland, Wales and northern England." So the non-England refs were certainly not "appended". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 80-90% of the text was about the English division. If a GB one is notable, a new well-referenced non-OR article would be useful to the 'Pedia. Journalists and crats in London/SE England tend to divide the world into "Home Counties" and "the rest of the world", so it is not particularly significant how this manifests itself in individual examples. Probably this is more of a periphery-core thing in relation to he UK than a North-South thing, though as the latter is a very old deeply rooted way of thinking about England it may be occassionally accommodated. But if it's just to flesh out some Home Counties prejudice that Europe's 5th largest financial center and the EU's oil capital form part of some red Transtamesian poverty-stricken continuum of decaying urbanism, then it's probably not gonna be worth a 'Pedia article. ;) Really can't find much on it myself ... probably a mention in this article without violating WP:UNDUE would be sufficient. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a pretty crummy article, isn't it? I've removed the stupid sentence which begins "southerneners (sic) almost universally regard the Midlands as North.......". Poshseagull (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Funding favouring the North
Hi, I've just seen that the statement, and and link to the news source that shows that spending favours the North has been deleted and replaced with the old and erronious one that spending favours The South, despite the linked article not supporting that information, it covers only a narrow area (housing) of a system that is no longer active, where as the article showing funding favours the North has detailed financial information on all government spending which shows that catagorically across all areas funding favours the North at the detriment of The South East.

I don't want this to get into a revert or edit war, but it seems to me that the prime point based on the actual numbers should be in the article, rather than some out of date information about one small area of spending. Can I have your views please? If no one states any views, I'll move back to the DM article, with the full numbers that show and support the statement that shows that government support favours the North. MattUK (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably the very worst article on wikipedia
Does no-one ever visit the Office for National Statistics? Scotland, from memory, is up in the top 5 (if not the top 3) NUTS1 regions of the UK in terms of Gross Value Added per capita and yet is lumped with the north of England in terms of "Growth" which could be equated - at least by casual readers - with economic performance. Maybe if real terms growth statistics existed for regions other than Scotland, this assertion could be evaluated. Until then, I would recommend that this article concerns itself only with non-economic intra-regional hatred without reference to "facts" e.g. Southerners are "poofs", Northerners all own pigeons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stauner (talk • contribs) 22:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added Stereoytpes to the "see also" list. People love divides and stereotypes, don't they? But they're hardly encyclopaedic, are they? Ah well, perhaps someone could do us articles on the arts-science divide or the town-country divide? The latter in particular could contain all sorts of platitudinous assertions.Poshseagull (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd second that - I'd go as far as to say the North South divide doesn't even exist in anything more than economic terms - it's basically a class divide and to say that the vast numbers of working-class people in the South East have more in common with the affluent classes than they do with similar people in the North is plainly ridiculous. I've lived for long periods in both so feel qualifieed to speak on this. Actually in the affluent areas of the South East you'll find a divide between the true local people (almost always working-class and often confined to counciol estates therse days) and the more well-off newcomers (many who ironically often have roots in places like the North)far more pronounced than that between the Northand Southern English. PS To include a quote from that ridiculous Stuart Maconie book is the low point of a terrible article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.64.40 (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Cornwall Section
A large portion of the article has been removed, including a number of external citations. In order that consensus may be reached concerning the issue of how the case of Cornwall relates to and informs upon concepts of the North-South-divide the text of the deleted section is reproduced here:

Cornwall
Although Cornwall in geographical latitude terms, is the southernmost local authority area in the United Kingdom, its industrial history, particularly with reference to the mining industry, makes it an anomalous case if seen in a southern English context. Cultural traditions such as male voice choirs, brass bands and others that exist in Cornwall have much in common with similar ones in the north of England. The hypothesis that Cornwall is an exclave of the North within the physical geographical south is an alternative narrative to Cornish nationalism, which sees Cornwall as a nation in its own right, within the context of the Celtic nations. A news article on the BBC website discusses devolution, where the regions listed in which there were active devolution campaigns were; Yorkshire, the North East (defined as "from the Tweed to the Tees"), and Cornwall. It may be noted that Yorkshire and the North East are in the North, and given the stated similarity between the three regions mentioned in the article, and the lack of any region in the South with a notable devolution campaign (other than the exception that proves the rule of Cornwall), Cornwall has some northern characteristics.

A geological divide within Great Britain is the Tees-Exe line, dividing the island of Great Britain into north and south. To the north of the line, igneous and metamorphic rocks predominate, and to the south sedimentary rocks. The effect on this is that the areas to the north have a more undulating topography, and areas to the south a flatter one e.g. the Fens, due to differences in how the various rock types respond to erosion. Landscapes are known to have psychological influence on people who live within them (see also Environmental psychology).

In addition, igneous and metamorphic rocks more commonly contain metalliferous ores, which led to more mining industry in the North (and Cornwall), which supported different economic development during the Industrial Revolution. Seen in this context, Cornwall is in the north.

Govynn (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that what is needed would be a section dealing more widely with South-West England and/or the West Country. The classical stereotype of "the South" is based essentially on the South East and has very little to do with Cornwall/Devon/Somerset. There is quite a good section on the Midlands and where it fits in on the North-South continuum (I say "quite good" since I myself improved it a bit this afternoon with the bit about the 1930s and the Midlands booming alongside the South, while the North and the Celtic Fringe were beleaguered by the Great Depression.)  Personally I think the South West also deserves its own section as it too is of rather ambiguous alignment in the North-South divide - it even has its own distinct accent, culture and politics.


 * I'd stop short of saying "Cornwall is in the north", context or no context, due to the simple geographic absurdity of such as statement. Something like "Seen in this context, Cornwall is more closely related to the North" or "... has more in common with the North" would be more appropriate. 95.144.245.111 (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Heraldic provinces
Could mention the heraldic provinces (Clarenceux vs. Norroy) traditionally divided by the River Trent... AnonMoos (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on North–South divide (England). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090313004303/http://archive.cravenherald.co.uk/2004/4/5/101548.html to http://archive.cravenherald.co.uk/2004/4/5/101548.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060725160239/http://www.oldham.gov.uk/shaw___royton_area_plan_-_april_04b.pdf to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/shaw___royton_area_plan_-_april_04b.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on North–South divide (England). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403140001/http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/NeighbourhoodSummary.do?width=1280&a=3&c=B91&i=1001&m=1&p=1&q=1&enc=1&profileSearchText=B911js&searchProfiles= to http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/NeighbourhoodSummary.do?width=1280&a=3&c=B91&i=1001&m=1&p=1&q=1&enc=1&profileSearchText=B911js&searchProfiles=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Excessive significance given to a single film?
About one sixth of the section on the Midlands is a description of the 2004 film Once Upon a Time in the Midlands. This is the only artistic work referenced in this section, it does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia to lean so heavily on a single film when characterizing a fairly large region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.19.142 (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)