open Democracy News Analysis - Time for a review of English governance, - Comments

M Anderson on "Time for a review of English governance"

M Anderson — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:54:23 +0000

Robert, on April 5th, 2008 at 9:00 am Said:

"The name Colchester is a corrupted form of the Brythonic/Welsh word ‘Camulodunon’ which means ‘Fortress of Camulos."

Not true at all.

The word chester comes from the old English word "ceaster", meaning a city or walled town. It was used to describe a walled town that had originally been a Roman Station such as Dorchester. In many instances the meaning seems to have extended to indicating any sort of pre historic fort that was there on the site of the town.

The name also crops up in town and village names as Caster and caster. Castleford in Yorkshire, for example, was originally Casterford as there was a ford to cross the river near a walled town. There was not castle there – the nearest one was 5 miles away at Pontefract.

Other examples are Chichester in Sussex and Rudchcester in Northumberland.

The use of this wording in place names means an Anglo Saxon settlement that took over from a Roman fort. Under Norman influence, the names became –cester as in Gloucester and Cirencester and even –eter, as in Wroxeter. Ceaster is one of three types of anglo saxon settlements used in place names, the others being burgh and port.

"...It existed before the Romans and long before the English were ever heard of.'

Of course it didn't! The Angles, Saxons and Jutes existed long before Colchester existed. The Angles existed long before cornwall, scotland, and wales to. If it wasnt for the Angles (English) the wales wouldnt exist. We have to save the wales!

Anglii/Angles: A germanic tribe that came from the Jutland Peninsula (Angeln) and lived in the Schleswig-Holstein area (north Germany) around 100 AD

Saxons: (see also Chauci) The Saxon name is first mentioned by Ptolemy in about 150 AD. Ptolemy says that the Saxons were from lower Jutland and what is now Schleswig-Holstein in Germany.

Jutes: Jutes were people originally from what is now Jutland in modern Denmark. Contemporaries of Angles and Saxons.

Cherusci: a germanic tribe settled around the Rhine and the forests of western Germany. Were principals in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD. Arminius, a Cherusci leader, wiped out three Roman legions under Varus

Chauci: lived on the northwestern shore of Germany during Roman times. They then merged with the Saxons.

Ray Bell on "Time for a review of English governance"

Ray Bell — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:36:16 +0000

It should also be noted that those who identified themselves as Cornish in the last census did so as a matter of deliberate conscious choice, because it was not even given as an option. The people had to write it in themselves - this, without a doubt, probably lowered the number of Cornish considerably. Most folk try to get through the census quickly, ticking each and every box, so this reveals some level of determination.

Philip Hosking on "Time for a review of English governance"

Philip Hosking — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 07:39:34 +0000

"Why should I have to convince you? You convince me, no, you prove to me that the majority of people in cornwall are cornish!"

Are the majority of England inhabitants 'English', or rather a mix of British, English and other identities? The 2001 census didn't turn up many 'English' people who were ready to deny being British, tick the others box and then write in 'English' for their identity. 37,000 Cornish people did, what proportion of Englands population did this?

The fact is that the Cornish are an indigenous national minority and so have rights as provided by various European and UN treaties that the UK has signed.

Robert on "Time for a review of English governance"

Robert — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 07:00:36 +0000

"I don’t quite see what your point about Colchester is. Its name is of pre-English origin - corrupted Latin, I believe."

The name Colchester is a corrupted form of the Brythonic/Welsh word 'Camulodunon' which means 'Fortress of Camulos.' It existed before the Romans and long before the English were ever heard of.

Mike Small on "Time for a review of English governance"

Mike Small — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:34:52 +0000

If people want more on Ray's view on Cornwall, go to the Bella Caledonia site for 'The Case for Cornwall':

http://bellacaledonia.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/the-case-for-cornwall/

Ray Bell on "Time for a review of English governance"

Ray Bell — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:47:53 +0000

"Isn’t this the same ploy that you are using to justify cornwalls “ancient” status Ray?"

No, not quite. Cornwall was in existence as a nation before England was united. It even had its own kings.

I don't quite see what your point about Colchester is. Its name is of pre-English origin - corrupted Latin, I believe.

"I dont think there was plenty of anti scottish anti welsh legislation at all Ray! Plenty means a lot!"

Yes, and because there is plenty, I don't have space to list it all. Over the ages, I could mention the following.

* Dress Act 1746 - forbidding various items of Scottish costume.

* Wales and Berwick Act 1746 - makes Wales part of England.

* 1855 - Berwick-upon-Tweed made part of Northumberland, in violation of previous legislation.

* The 1875 Education act, which forbid the languages of Scotland and Wales in the classroom.

* Late 50s - The act which led to the flooding of Llyn Celyn - opposed by 35/36 Welsh MPs (the 36th abstained)

* Interpretation Act 1978 - claims Monmouthshire as part of England.

* 1979 - majority of voters choose a Scottish Assembly, which is rejected. (Note distinction with European elections which have much lower turnouts)

* Community Charge ("poll tax) 1989 - which constituted a violation of the act of union, and was opposed by the vast majority of Scots.

* Theft of Scottish territorial waters up to Carnoustie

And that's just off the top of my head. If I was more familiar with Wales, I'm sure I could find more examples from there!

cujimmy on "Time for a review of English governance"

cujimmy — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:17:55 +0000

Ray,

I think you're somewhat confused. Dumnonia is a completely different concept to cornwall, i.e. they were not the same thing and cornwall was not a continuation of dumnonia.

It seems that some "celts" will say anything to prove their right to well, say anything.

Ray, the first group of people to live in what is now England were the Beaker folk. Another group of people

came later. These were forced over into what is now Southern Ireland by the people who now occupy wales and scotland. Then the Angles, Saxons and Jutes came. Making derogatory remarks about Essex appears to prove the old adage that theres nobody as insecure as he who makes up his own history.

The name Essex derives from the East Seaxe or East Saxons. These people came from Germany and Denmark. So what? The "celts" came from central europe. And? The English are just as ancient a nation as those in scotland.

Isn't this the same ploy that you are using to justify cornwalls "ancient" status Ray? If so-called celts can move from one place to another and still be the same people then so can the Angle-Saxons.

"...if you can show evidence that at least some of its natives have never considered themselves English, and that this goes back in a continuous thread for centuries, then I might be convinced."

Why should I have to convince you? You convince me, no, you prove to me that the majority of people in cornwall are cornish!

Ray, who was the first group of people to live

in what is now England? It wasnt the so-called celts! Also, I never stated the people of Essex are amongst the most English in the kingdom; you did.

By the way, I am still waiting for evidence that "plenty" of anti scottish anti welsh legislation has been passed by the UK wide parliament.

RE: I would like to see the “plenty” of past anti scottish/anti welsh legislation coming out of Westminster. I dont think there was plenty of anti scottish anti welsh legislation at all Ray! Plenty means a lot! Maybe you can post all of it for us. Thanks Ray!

Ray Bell on "Time for a review of English governance"

Ray Bell — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:44:33 +0000

"Essex is older than cornwall!"

I think you should do your own research. Cornwall - and indeed Dumnonia, are recorded in pre-Anglo-Saxon times.

The people of Essex are amongst the most English in the kingdom - if you can show evidence that at least some of its natives have never considered themselves English, and that this goes back in a continuous thread for centuries, then I might be convinced.

"Colchester in the north east of the county is Britain’s oldest recorded town"

And it appears that Orkney and the Isles of Scilly are amongst the earliest recorded locations in these islands. Your point is, caller?

Ray Bell on "Time for a review of English governance"

Ray Bell — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:40:41 +0000

Sarah,

I have REPEATEDLY mentioned my support for Shetlandic self-determination.

Haven't you been reading anything I said? Perhaps you should before you judge. Then you'd actually know my opinion of the Shetland issue.

Cornwall is not a proper part of England. There's evidence for this going back well over a thousand years. In fact, longer since England has been in existence. And predating the Norse presence in Shetland.

Oh, and by the way, you never did answer my question - do you consider Monmouthshire to be English or Welsh?

Terry Heath on "Time for a review of English governance"

Terry Heath — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:17:25 +0000

Philip

I’m sure you would feel welcome and I for one support the right for Cornwall to decide (ie be asked at least) if they want to break away. I’m sure I’m not alone.

We need to have an English state in order for England to look to her affairs. Any other way is to put the cart before the horse. The other alternative is the objectionable idea that other members of the UK have a right to determine what is better for England, when the reverse is not allowed.

If you go the regional route, you’ll be just part of the West Country with the kind of insipid settlement offered to the North East. You won’t have the nation you want: you won’t even have regional devolution (on Scotland’s scale).

Know your enemy, it ain’t us.

Philip Hosking on "Time for a review of English governance"

Philip Hosking — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:11:00 +0000

Terry Heath,

I don't doubt your sincerity and thank you for your invitation however I must decline for the following reasons.

1) Many of the people within the CEP are rabidly hostile to Cornish national recognition and autonomy and I really wouldn't feel that welcome.

2) An English parliament would offer the Cornish what exactly other than a return to the pre act of union situation of a highly centralised England? An English state is no guarantee of an answer to the Cornish question and perhaps even the opposite.

3) Regionalism, if given more flexibility over what constitutes a region, offers the real possibility of devolved powers to Cornwall.

Terry Heath on "Time for a review of English governance"

Terry Heath — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:45:00 +0000

Philip Hosking and Ray Bell, please don’t take this as an insult, but you remind me of the Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy. He spent the first five years as Party leader opposing the opposition! It turned out that he was so smashed most of the time that he failed to notice the parties had swapped sides of the House.

I’m not saying you’re drunk, but you do seem to oppose an EP on the basis of Cornwall being a nation in its own right, every time EP exponents raise their head above the parapet. Do you think that Cornish interests are better represented by Brown’s “defend the Union” clarion? If you’re really, really lucky, you’ll be lumped in with the Devon/Bristol/Chelmsford region because you’re “West Country”.

Why don’t you join the campaign for national recognition within the UK? As a campaigner for an EP, I’d support Cornwall’s self determination in a heartbeat. Stop opposing an EP; start opposing the “regionalists”; get within the campaign and set your stall out, because Brown et al is not your friend. You’re more likely to find allies in the campaign for constitutional equality, than you ever will within the establishment’s vested interests camp.

Come on guys, what’s the problem? What's your real beef?

Philip Hosking on "Time for a review of English governance"

Philip Hosking — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:48:59 +0000

""Plenty of Cornish consider themselves English but these people are treated like they don’t exist by Cornish nationalists (rather like the english speaking Welsh seem not to exist sometimes). Naturally this hypocrisy doesn’t infringe into through their pasty tinted vision of themselves. Funnily enough the faux concern for civic and human identity doesn’t seem to apply when that identity is English""

Are you happy just making it up as you go along Sarah? The main Cornish party Mebyon Kernow contains many English members some of whom are elected MK councillors. Really Sarah you can tell lies if you want but it only really reflects badly on you.

Your observations about many Cornish people considering themselves as English could also be turned around to say many 'English' people consider themselves Cornish but where does it get us? Most English people see themselves as British and even European but I don't think that will put you off you mission will it?

Stephen Gash on "Time for a review of English governance"

Stephen Gash — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:27:26 +0000

Guy Lodge quote: "How should power be decentralised within England? How should our public services, like policing, be held to account? How can the quangos that rule so much of public life in England be more effectively democratised? These are the English Questions that the public really care about and which demand answers."

Well so far they've rejected English regions but the Constitution Unit and IPPR keep baging on about them. Sedgefield rejected Unitary Authorities by 76% in a local referendum, but still had one imposed. One thing that strikes the English people about "Europhiles" is that they don't believe in democracy, they just spout empty platitudes about democracy.

cujimmy on "Time for a review of English governance"

cujimmy — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:02:51 +0000

Ray Bell:

Cornwall is an ancient nation, not merely another English county.

Your arrogance AND ignorance is showing. Essex is older than cornwall! If you're going to slag off England at least do your research. Otherwise you end up looking like a right tool mate!

The Cornovii were sufficiently established for their territory to be recorded as Cornubia by AD 700, and remained as such into the Middle Ages.

The name Essex derives from the East Seaxe or East Saxons. The Kingdom of Essex was traditionally founded by Aescwine in 527 AD, occupying territory to the north of the River Thames, incorporating much of what would later become Middlesex and Hertfordshire, though its territory was later restricted to lands east of the River Lee.

It is through this origin as one of the 'Saxon' kingdoms that Essex is specifically not part of the region known as East Anglia (the latter comprising Norfolk, Suffolk, and Cambridgeshire), settled by tribes calling themselves 'Anglian'.

Colchester in the north east of the county is Britain's oldest recorded town, dating back to before the Roman conquest, when it was known as Camulodunon, and was sufficiently well-developed to have its own mint.

Time for a review of English governance,

OurKingdom — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:58:35 +0000

Guy Lodge (London, ippr): In his review of a recently published ippr north paper - Where Stands the Union? by John Curtice - Gareth Young challenges the view that the English are content with the current constitutional arrangements for governing England, and suggests that there is growing public support for the establishment of an English Parliament.

Much of this debate rests on how you interpret various polling evidence, with Young preferring a series of commercial polls to the data Curtice draws on from the British Social Attitudes survey. Like Curtice we believe that the BSA survey is a more robust data source because of its sample size, more neutral wording of questions, and because it gives respondents a series of options to choose from, which many of the commercial polls do not. For these reasons its results tend to deviate from the commercial polls: the latest BSA data finds that only one in five want an English Parliament, whereas just over half of people in England support the status quo.

But this does not mean that we do not recognise that something important is going on. As Curtice notes, only 50% support the status quo, hardly the strongest endorsement for doing nothing. Moreover, Curtice shows that the English do seem to be frustrated by both the West Lothian Question and the way public spending is distributed across the nations of the UK, which is creating a source of tension. This suggests a stirring sense of dissatisfaction within England - but one that has yet to translate into concrete support for a particular policy. The English may be waking up to the anomalies of devolution and might want something done about them but they remain unclear as to what should happen, and as the BSA data shows, they have certainly not decided that they want an English Parliament. There is a mood for change but no clearly defined movement.

Given this ippr north has called for a root and branch review of English governance. Such a review should address the issues raised by devolution to Scotland and Wales, and explore options for reform, including discussion of the pros and cons of an English Parliament. It would also need to look at the way public money is distributed. Crucially though, its remit should spread further than this, and it should also focus on what we consider to be the real problem facing England: the excessive degree of centralisation. How should power be decentralised within England? How should our public services, like policing, be held to account? How can the quangos that rule so much of public life in England be more effectively democratised? These are the English Questions that the public really care about and which demand answers.

Such an initiative would compliment the government-backed review of the Scottish devolution settlement and ensure that the government engaged in the politics of England. This would make a welcome departure from their current fingers-crossed approach, in which they hope that this debate will simply disappear. But it won't. It is time it was taken more seriously.