Talk:North–South divide in England

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)

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)

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: [1] 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)

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)

To Bastin8 from Sockpuppet

What's your problem? Is it because you're a sad Southerner who can't take a joke? In fact what I added about Northern stereotypes about Southerners can be found in many British publications, especially "It's grim up north" Stop being a spoil sport and loosen up a little. you're such a typical Southerner it's laughable and I'll be having a good laugh at your and the other eejits expense who keep reverting this article when I go up North to see my kith and kin this weekend. You Southerners anally retentive to the end!

To Thiseye from Bumblebee

Nice article but I added to it which is also my right and have just chastised your boyfriend Bastin8 or should that be Bastard8 about continually reverting perfectly acceptable editing especially since I am also from the UK, which means that you have NO MONOPOLY over the article. Grow up and get a life!!

"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)

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)