WINNER IN NON-FICTION
North-South Divide
Lizzie Deane, Xaverian College
Sitting in the Portico library you could be anywhere in the world. Immersed in a wonderful novel, you have no
idea if you’re in Tokyo or Rio, Cape Town or Paris… When you actually bother to look up you’d probably decide
that you are in Britain (the English headers on the bookshelves, absence of portraits of past presidents on the
walls and the unmistakable smell of egg and chips drifting through the open window should give it away). Yet
still you have no way of telling whereabouts you are in the country: you remain blissfully ignorant. You
absentmindedly wonder whether it’s Cambridge or Newcastle, Glasgow or Ke“Y’alright ar kid?”
Ah.
My point is, if you can hypothetically be inside a building, perhaps even walk out onto a busy high street, and
be oblivious of and unaffected by your whereabouts in the country then why do so many of us have this
inherent feeling that a North-South divide exists? There is no clear physical or geographical split; no sign on the
M1 Northbound which reads, “Beware all Southerners, for here the legend of the ‘common North’ becomes a
reality.” No, the division is more of an idea that some argue is a myth sprung from stereotypes. But the facts
say differently – there are indeed glaring cultural and socioeconomic disparities between the North and the
South of this country.
Naturally, as the Southern-situated capital, London is often cited as primary evidence of imbalance, in
particular to highlight the disproportionate distribution of wealth between North and South. Of the 10,000
plus multi-millionaires currently living in Britain, over 40% live in London and 70% of the FTSE 100 (Financial
Times Stock Exchange) are located within London’s metropolitan area, fuelling the argument that the economy
is becoming increasingly, and dangerously, Londoncentric.
The OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) this year launched a website which
allows users to compare relative quality of life in different regions of the UK, measured by various wellbeing
indicators. Of these indicators, London was ranked bottom for only one – murder rate. The North fared a little
worse in number terms with its regions coming bottom for, amongst other things, household disposable
income, jobs and healthcare. Apparently the average Scot could have added 3 years to their life expectancy
had they chosen to live in the South-East of England instead. Not a wholly happy picture. Perhaps we ought to
ask unfortunate future migrants to make a choice: premature death or a full life lived in constant fear of
murder? Rule, Britannia!
However, stats are stats and they never fail not to tell the whole story. Does it really follow, as the OECD would
have us think, that all Southerners have a better quality of life? Does that mean they are all more fulfilled and
lead happier, more successful lives than those of us up North? Try telling the WAG living in Alderley Edge or
the council-housed single parent in Plymouth about the injustices imbedded in the North-South divide and
chances are they’ll laugh in your face. Of course it is not as black and white as “the poor live up North and the
rich down South” but there are two truths that emerge from amongst all the data. Firstly, that the divide
exists. Secondly, that the South is currently, for want of a better word, winning.
I say currently because history demonstrates that the divide has not always existed on the same terms,
although its presence has been noted as far back as the 2 century AD. Roman Emperor Severus divided the
colony into “Britannia superior” and “Britannia inferior” with the former being the South, the half closest to
Rome with its capital Londinium. And for the classically self-pitying Northerner who needs more historical
evidence to prove to his mates in the pub that he really is incredibly hard-done by, another joyous fact: the
nd
Roman-era Hadrian’s Wall served as a physical divide too: the area north of the wall was known as “Britannia
Barbara” or “uncivilised Britain”.
However, on more than one occasion throughout this country’s extensive history, the North has escaped its
‘inferior’ label and overtaken its traditionally ‘superior’ counterpart. For centuries, economic climate, scientific
discovery and natural resources have played a role in determining the extent of the division and the ‘leader’ of
Britain’s figurative two-man race. One example where these factors came together to positively influence the
North was during the industrial revolution in the late 19 century. It is too often forgotten both by Northern
cynics and Southern elitists that, as Britain’s powerhouse, the North was the driving force in our efforts to
break through into the modern era and was therefore better off economically than the South of the country.
How many people today do you reckon have heard of Shaw and Crompton? Well back then the mill-town was
reported to have more millionaires per capita than any other town in the world, let alone Britain.
th
This swapping of roles over time is indicative of the nature of the North-South divide – it is flowing and
variable, perhaps even cyclical. But if the socioeconomic disparity can be somewhat explained by history, then
surely there must be some logical reason for centuries of quiet, underlying division in the minds of the British
people. Maybe we don’t win the World Cup enough so lack the experience of collective ecstasy. Or more
plausibly, maybe we simply enjoy the competition – the occasional “Haha, you’re so posh” Southerner quip
furthers pride in our own region. Maybe it’s healthy.
The question for the government today is one of balance. However subtle it may appear to some or glaringly
obvious to others, the country it governs is split. At the moment, the North is undeniably worse off. But why
should we have to be a country of two halves? Why should there always be a winner and a loser? It must be
the case that as a united country we have a high degree of control over the state and shape of all regions,
North, South, East and West. Can and will we achieve equilibrium for the first time in history?