I agree with you, Philip; it will involve taking English nationalism beyond its present 'borders', so to speak (e.g. the CEP), and associating it more integrally with the wider movement for constitutional reform.

You ask me, "Are you suggesting those who pursue constitutional, electoral and civil rights reform should join the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) as a means to achieve their goals or are you suggesting something more subtle?' Well, I think it would be a good thing if constitutional reform activists did join the CEP, of which I myself am not a member, by the way - so perhaps I should put my money where my mouth is, in this respect. However, I am indeed suggesting something more 'subtle' but at the same time more comprehensive: that those working in England for such reform goals should re-define the scope of their objectives as being for England, in the first instance - albeit that the proposals that are worked up must provide options for the other nations of the UK, such as a federal solution, if they wish to take them up. 

In other words, we should all stop talking about 'Britain' and start focusing on England; because any process driven by English people and taking place within the established 'national'-British political system (of which blogging should almost certainly be counted as an integral part nowadays, surely) cannot really command the authority and consensus of all the people of the UK given that there are formal processes of national debate that are intensively going on in Scotland and Wales from those countries' own perspectives. Let's just be honest and admit it when we're primarily talking about England, whether by design or by default, in the sense that the prescriptions of those who still like to believe in a unitary Union largely apply only to England whether they like it or not.

And no, there's no guarantee that an English parliament will be any less centralising than the current Westminster one. But if we get the design of a new constitution right, there should be powerful checks and balances; and if it turns out that English people do in fact want much more decentralisation of power down to a local or regional level, then it will and should be their choice. But, precisely, the context of that choice is national and English, whether we're talking about an English constitutional convention or any resultant English parliament, or indeed, England-wide referendums for 'devolution' of power within England itself.

So what I'm saying is, yes, I agree with the idea of a citizens' constitutional convention, although I'm daunted by the complexity of how you'd organise it and ensure that it was representative. However, it should perhaps be - or set out to be - an English constitutional convention in the first instance: something that could affirm and establish in a historic manner the sovereign right of the English as a nation to determine its own form of governance - to adapt a well known phrase from another country . . .. I don't think this needs to be a monolithic, top-down process. Anyone could organise such a convention; indeed, there could and maybe should be multiple conventions, organised by different organisations in different parts of England. Certainly, the CEP should consider organising one. They could be completely open affairs, with anyone being entitled to turn up.

Who knows - we could be starting an English democratic revolution! 

Denying the English a national body is exactly what you wish to do. Even taking a starting point that Cornwall is not part of England and has it's own governance, you still think you should be able to stick your beak in and dictate to 'England' how it should be governed and that governance is not to be any kind of national institution.

This post is just a typical example. Any other form of nationalism is of course great and totally in keeping with libertarianism but English nationalism isn't is and is not 'big' enough. For 'big' read doesn't prostrate itself at the feet of the likes of Phil Hosking enough.

Keith McBurney

Sovereingty & Confederacy: the antedote to Unions' Blues 

David, Philip and others .....including Guy "The travelling Ministry" (http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom-theme/guy-aitchison/2008/07/23/the-travelling-ministry) and John "Where there's a Wills there's a Way (http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom-theme/john-jackson/2008/07/18/where-theres-a-wills-theres-a-way)

As one favouring Independence and Union, and heartened to see gradual acknowledgement that doing something directly our selves might be the recourse now that broadening horizons are in full view and empowered in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland, herewith some further thoughts in our common cause for concern. ”What now?” and “who with?” are pressing questions given the State we are all in at present, especially to social democrats if that is a broad enough church for those who would be done with successive authoritarian and autocratic UK mal-administrations.

Charter 88’s and Unlock Democracy’s retrospective on proposing constitutional change to New Labour identified political parties predilection for piecemeal renewal rather than wholesale reform packages. The former whets our appetite for more whilst power is retained; the latter is anathema to their losing it. Conservative and Labour adversarial tribalism delivers political power to their parties first and foremost, not us. It is how they have survived. It is up to us to restore our democracies if we are to thrive. We are the demos and it is our cratus we need to be clear about. 

I suggest the “what now?” should not be a further ‘wish list’. Unlock Democracy has been there, its supporters and readers favouring principally PR, followed by a Bill of Rights and Codified Constitution(s). Rather it should be a coherent and cohesive, framed and fleshed out, systematic superstructure of constitutional reform befitting public purpose and purse, and without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Inter alia, it should address the governing relationships we would prefer within, between and beyond our local, intermediate and national levels. And from bottom-up again, what authority, responsibilities and matching resources would we wish to empower each tier with in a flexible framework capable of supporting a robust stability in any contingency? How should our interests be best represented? What assured shorthold limitations should we place on such tenures? What aspects of our individual and several sovereignties would we be willing to share in mutual interest, either ad hoc or on a day-to-day basis?

I suggest too that “who with?” is none other than with we, the people. And what better way to engage with each other than through the means of Citizens’ Constitutional Conventions in each of our countries. Nor need our open Conventions end in informed deliberation. Referendums will be necessary to put the practical proposed outcomes to the test of our individual and several self-determinations. The conditions so determined become our codified constitutions. The terms so determined become our rules for our engaging institutions including the executive, legislature and judiciary.

Then there is the small matter of getting it all put into practice. This little local difficulty might best be overcome by overwhelming public support for such Conventions from the outset. Nor should the entire process be considered a one-off. For instance, matters might arise for further consideration later. Public involvement in the production of a generic Citizens’ Convention Planning Process would serve both these purposes as well as being the foundation of future work.

Whatever is done, it has to work. And it has to deliver. As Guy highlighted from this MoJ document, the good people of Bristol pointed out to Mr Wills that any "public engagement had to be meaningful and worthwhile to the participants involved and that their contribution is going to be taken into account as part of the decision-making process." The public at large would expect no less however it came about. Hence expectations should be limited to the essential essence of achieving the objective.

If progress is made along these or similar lines, it will be no surprise to see two themes arising: decentralization and plurality. Nor should it be a surprise to see two outcomes vying to replace the status quo at the top tier: Federation and Confederation. And, as Confederation uniquely accommodates Union and prerequisite Independence, there are no prizes for deducing that which I favour between either Federation - together, but divided and set apart to rule, or Confederation - apart, yet still together and united in ruling ourselves.

The stated aim of the intergovernmental Council of the Isles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_Isles) is to "promote the harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of relationships among the peoples of these islands". A Union of the Isles would reflect the totality of relationships between our nations of families and friends and our friendly family of nations. And in going back to the future, it re-opens the door to the reunion of all our peoples: English, Scots, Welsh and yes all the Irish, as well as now the folk of the self-governing isles of Guernsey, Jersey and Man (not to mention possibilities for others such as those in Cornwall), together with those of the overseas territories if that be their settled will too. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_overseas_territory)

Moreover, it would be a reunion with all our diasporas everywhere, not least within the Commonwealth - itself a confederal arrangement - as is the EU if ever the Commission’s commissars are disabused of their supra-national federal leanings and instructed to draft a Confederal Constitution Treaty for concurrent Referendums across our Europe of Nation States whilst being themselves transformed into an advisory secretariat.

But it is not what one individual would prefer which matters. It is what we individually and severally are prepared to sign-up and subscribe through taxation to which does if we are to embrace our differences in liberty, equality and humanity. Independence, liberating interdependence from dependence; a Union based on real equality and its realisation; and our common humanity binding our societies in social union. Whatever else, the whole process should indeed be informative to replace prejudice with preference in revealing underlying truths and scotching the many myths perpetrated by vested party interests.

Unlock Democracy might be best placed to enable economy of our co-ordinated efforts. Revisiting Networking Democracy with a remit to address Citizens’ Conventions might yield a greater consensus than hitherto on how best to promote transparency and engagement. openDemocracy might wish to facilitate e-zine matters still further with an ‘ourDemocracies’ site. The Power Report and updates might be an ideal ready reference and place to start. An amount of further philanthropic investment in our democratic futures together would also be welcome. 

For all our quests for freedom, what say you?

Aye Ours,

Keith, frae Fife and Yorkshire   

Nice try to make someone other than yourself the hypocrite. Fact is you don't consider Cornwall to be part of England, you ignore the fact that many Cornish consider themselves English and don't think that anyone 'English' should have a role in deciding its future. What's more as the previous comment stated but which you have chosen to ignore even if you work from a starting point that you have what you want that Cornwall is defined as not-England and is 'free' from 'English' interference you still seem to think that everything 'England' does should be run past you first. If Scotland voted for independence in 2010 and shortly after Shetland declared it wasn't Scottish and went it's own way. Scots might think that the Shetlanders were wrong, might wish it weren't so, might try and convince them to remain etc but they wouldn't expect them to have a say in the remaining Scottish state and neither, I suspect would you, yet that's exactly what you expect from the 'English'. You're a democrat in the way New Labour and it's devolution settlement is 'democratic'. Parts hived and allowed to decide their own matters yet still allowed to vote on those same matters for others. It's not surprising at all you're part of some 'celtic' nationalist movement. Overinflated views of your own worth, whether someone is wrong being the same as whether or not they are English and the idea that making your own decisions only cuts one way (away from England) seems to be fairly rampant in such groups.