For three centuries there was a kingdom on the British Arles which acted with political independence

from the south of what today we call England. Meanwhile it maintained a similar relationship

with an independent state which today we would call Scotland. Its name was Northumbria,

an Anglo-Saxon kingdom which existed from the mid-Sovon to the mid-10th century north

of the river Humber. While that was a millennium ago the North of England has enjoyed a distinct

political and social culture from the south of England ever since, as well as more recently

a different economic model and relationship to industrial modernity in an event of which

it was both the cradle and crucible. Now as demands for Scottish independence amplify

calls for Welsh independence move from marginal to mainstream and the prospects of United

Ireland seem plausible for the first time in a century could the North of England really

get in on the act? And can the name Northumbria really give rise to a new modern nation? With

me to discuss that it's founder of the Northern Independence Party, Philip Proudfoot.

Philip, welcome to Downstream. Thank you for inviting me. It's so great

pleasure to have you on. Philip, I'll start right from the top. Why does the North of England

need independence? While you were getting at it with your introduction there a little bit,

there are multiple ways to answer that question. There is the strategic question which is

if Scotland gains independence, if Welsh independence starts to gain even further momentum.

What is left of the North? The North has a similar kind of relationship with Westminster

to Scotland and to Wales. So you know 70% of the time the North hasn't been represented by the

government that it is voted for. So we have the same sort of relationship with Westminster.

If you think about the ways in which you know that the well sort of transport situation reflects

the transport situation in the North of England. It's harder to move across the North than it

...