Skip to main content

Northumbrian Nationalism and How To Save The Union


In the opening chapter of The Communist Manifesto, Bourgeois and Proletarians, Marx outlines his view of history. "Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian... oppressor and oppressed."  Marx believed that all history had been a struggle between two classes: the oppressive and the oppressed. In this vein, left-wing nationalists the world over have positioned themselves as the oppressed class within this dichotomy. The modern Manchester Marxist might add "Westminster and Northumbria" to that list.

Although almost undiscussed just a few years ago, there is a growing movement amongst socialists in Northern England to secede from the United Kingdom. The Northern Independence Party (NIP) was founded in October 2020, motivated by the belief that the United Kingdom is an illegitimate, ill-founded union and that the Westminster government has been neglectful of Northern England. The NIP now has 1300 members and its Twitter account, which uses the handle @FreeNorthNow, has more than 60,000 followers. The Party calls to "break the chains of Westminster" and to build a "fairer and freer North".

Although the Northern Independence Party will be insignificant (at best, it may win a few borough council seats), it is important to recognise that the popularity of the NIP is a symptom of a fracture that has long been ignored in British politics. The idea of a North-South divide in England is no novel concept, but the idea that the North is being held captive to the Westminster elite, and that secession is the only solution, is new in the political sphere. An increasing minority in England has joined Welsh and Scottish secessionists in campaigning away from the Union. Is Balkanisation inevitable? I disagree, the Union can be saved.

Unionists must first recognise that secessionists are motivated by a hatred for England (more specifically, Southern England) - not a genuine love for their own cultural identities. Each nation within the United Kingdom has a distinct cultural identity, but the rhetoric of secessionist parties like Plaid Cymru and the SNP demonstrates that their identity is constructed in reaction to Britain's. Secessionist parties devote much effort to advancing other secessionist movements, demonstrating that their political identities are not fuelled by love for long-held national traditions. Mebyon Kernow, a Cornish nationalist party, has benefitted greatly from its alliance with other secessionist parties in the British Isles. For example, in the 2015 General Election, senior politicians from Plaid Cymru and the SNP wrote to the BBC Director-General in demand of a Party Election Broadcast for Mebyon Kernow. Why would a party that describes itself as having "the priorities and interests of Scotland at heart" devote its attention to Cornwall? Secessionism proceeds from Westminster, not Wales, nor Scotland nor Northern England. 

Once unionists realise that all independence movements in Britain are a reaction to the perceived faults of England, that which unionists consider effective political strategy changes dramatically. Typically, unionist strategy has consisted of conceding ground to nationalists. This school of unionist political thought, which I will call "soft unionism", promulgates the falsehood that secessionists can be placated. Soft unionists believe that secessionists will cease in their demands if given more representation. In 1997, Tony Blair's New Labour thought that devolution (which involved the creation of Scottish and Welsh Parliaments) would end cries for independence: it is safe to say that the last twenty years have proven Mr Blair resoundingly wrong. The alleged faults of Westminster cannot be pushed away via decentralisation: the success of the SNP in the devolution era is evidence of this.  Instead, unionists must focus on the improvement of Westminster as a political organ. Westminster must not be viewed by unionists as a fixed feature of traditional British society, but rather as a means of preserving Britain the society. Westminster must change for Britain to live on. Moreover, unionists must realise that secessionism will not be killed by electoral politics; a cultural shift is necessary

Foremost, we need a significant change to the way that the British Cabinet functions. Currently, all members of The Cabinet must either be Members of Parliament or the House of Lords. On the same token, due to ideological motivations, Prime Ministers select their Cabinet members from within their party. As a result of the Conservatives' electoral dominance in the South of England, the Cabinet has naturally been filled by Southern English MPs. When one understands the scope of Cabinet's power, he realises that our executive branch is not at the behest of the brightest, but rather of an entrenched establishment. The Conservative inability to win votes in Wales and Scotland, and, until recently, in Northern England, has created a rift between the seat of governance and the hotbeds of secessionism. In order to rectify this, we must transfer the Cabinet from the hands of partisanship into the hands of the learned. Under the current model of partisan Cabinets, Cabinets will always be filled by those representing certain geographical areas; a Labour Cabinet will prioritise the interests of urban centres. In stark contrast, not only would an expert Cabinet be far more capable, the chance for geographical diversity would be greater and the chances of disillusionment from power would be lessened. Re-organise the Cabinet to save the Union.

A change to the Cabinet of this sort is unlikely. Given the nature of politicians, it is unlikely that such power would be relinquished. However, this does not mean that Cabinet (and by extension, the Union) is doomed. If the Cabinet is to remain in the hands of partisan politics, the winning Party must not alienate particular regions of the country, especially those with longstanding secessionist movements. In this case, this means that Conservatives must begin to fight elections across the country. Conservative campaigns in Scotland and Wales are dull and predictable. While the SNP market themselves as dynamic and progressive, the Conservative campaign is usually, "We are a unionist party." Conservatives need to have real ambitions of governing Scotland in order to save the Union.

Thirdly, and most importantly, unionists must realise that secessionism will not be quenched by electoral politics. Electoral politics changes the conditions, but a cultural shift is necessary. British history is not merely the history of a Greater England and a battle for the hearts and minds of secessionists must be won. Unionists must put an end to the practice of merely placating independence movements - they can and will be convinced.












Comments