open Democracy News Analysis - The case for Cornwall, Tom Griffin - Comments

The Cornish Democrat on "The case for Cornwall"

The Cornish Democrat — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:45:50 +0000

Are you trying to be funny and friendly Paul or are you trying to use ridicule against someone whose opinion you don't like? I'm really not sure, perhaps you could clarify.

As for surviving alone. Who is 'alone' in this new Europe? If other small nations can do it so can we. With a healthy dose of structural funding from the EU, yes we can.

The Cornish Democrat

Paul Kingsnorth on "The case for Cornwall"

Paul Kingsnorth — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:00:53 +0000

As I was saying, Philip, I am now converted to the case for independence. Since I'm English, and can't really call for anyone else's, I'm going to campaign for English independence. Since Cornwall, as you have so ably demonstrated, is nothing to do with England, you can do what you like after that. But it does mean you have to earn your own keep. Sounds like you'll have absolutely no problems. I'm afraid you can't have the tin back, though, because we used it all to put our baked beans in.

There's a bright side, though: you get to have all that Duchy land back, because in the Commonwealth of England we will have sent the monarchy packing (again). They haven't been English since 1066, by the way - so all that stuff they were doing to you? They were doing it to us too. Never trust a Frenchman.

Economically, I have already come up with an arrangement which could benefit our two new nations: you could keep making Duchy Originals and selling them to us. Our first trade agreement. They are rather good, and you could put a Cornish crest on them instead.

The Cornish Democrat on "The case for Cornwall"

The Cornish Democrat — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:00:33 +0000

Paul,

Trying to be funny in order to hide your ignorance is not very constructive is it? Kevin Cahill, an author and investigative journalist for the Sunday Times, wrote about the economy of Cornwall. In the Killing of Cornwall, he notes that the London Treasury extracts £1.95 billion in taxes out of Cornwall's GDP of £3.6 billion. The Treasury returns less than £1.65 billion, so there is a net loss to Cornwall of 300 million pounds, where the total earnings figure is 24% below the national average.Then we could consider the fact that England has used Cornwall and its mineral assets to support its heir to the throne for centuries thus ensuring that England hasn't had to pay tax for him. How about liquidising the Duchy and returning all its profits and properties to the Cornish people Paul? Then if you still want an heir to the throne you can pay for him yourself.

Manxunionist,

Quote:

Really? Despite the fact that the language died about 200 years ago, but was recently revived (and no one really speaks it. I bet you could not carry a conversation or write anything in Cornish)? Despite that looking at the phonebook the surnames are the same as the rest of England? At what point are things overcome by events?

The language is in better shape now than it has been for years and is growing everyday. Strange the hostility you express towards a minority language. Have you looked in the Cornish phone book recently? Funnily enough it is full of Brythonic names of non English origins, far more than any part of England. But anyway you understanding of ethnicity is rather stinted by your British nationalism.

Nationality exists in the minds of people, its only conceivable habitat. Outside peoples minds there can be no nationality, because nationality is a way of looking at oneself not an entity an sich. Common sense is able to detect it, and the only human discipline that can describe and analyse it is psychology. This awareness, this sense of nationality, this national sentiment, is more than a characteristic of a nation. It is nationhood itself.

The ethnic data from the 2007 Cornish schools survey showed that 27% of children consider themselves to be Cornish rather than British or English. Setting up ridiculous straw man arguments to knock down is rather telling of your capacities Manxunionist. I have never claimed that there has not been a mixing of peoples and large scale immigration into Cornwall. Of course Cornwall shares a very large heritage with the rest of the Isles, and Europe, but to use this to say Cornwall is just another English county is nonsense.

Quote:

The argument you make is that there is no rule that the UK must stay as-is. But the same can be flipped your way and say that there is no rule that says that Cornwall should be revived.

But that's politics Manxie.

Quote:

Personally, I could care less if Cornwall wants to saw itself off the mainland and float itself to the middle of the Atlantic ocean. But I find it very dangerous to be basing the future on 'historic' nations and the past, trying to recapture some glory that to be quite frank, you or anyone are unable to verify (unless you've built a time machine in your garage). You really need to get over that.

Clearly you are bothered otherwise you wouldn't be here would you. Again a ridiculous straw man? I don't want to 'saw off' Cornwall I just want to give as much power as possible to ALL the people of Cornwall for them to decide their own futures. This, in my opinion, would include very close cooperation with the rest of the Isles and Europe. My future is not based on recapturing glory but rather on an empowered Cornwall in a unified and democratic Europe. I think that trumps your outdated UK state, product of previous centuries.

Quote:

You say Cornish identity is suppressed. What you really are saying is that you want everyone in the UK to pay for the so-called Cornish to promote their culture and despise the UK, the same people giving you the funds. If you want to promote Cornish culture, pay for it yourself. Form a group, collect some money, open some privately funded schools, and teach Cornish heritage to your hearts content. No one is stopping you.

Millions are spent on English culture and we Cornish tax payers contribute to this so how about we get just a little slice of the pie for our culture?

Quote:

If you were to put forth a coherent plan that says you want to improve Cornwall because of a, b, and c, without all this pseudo-ethnic crap that you always pepper your comments with, then perhaps you'd get support.

Straw men a go go today isn't it? Have you read any of my other articles on OK, visited the Mebyon Kernow website or read the publications by the Cornish Constitutional Convention? I Think not.

Quote:

There is NO SUCH thing as Cornish, English, Irish, Manx, Scottish, or Welsh. We are all an admixture of one another. That is why I believe in the Union and I don't believe in artificial borders conjured up by kooks that have nothing better to do with their time than divide and spread hate.

Genetically yes you are clearly right but human identity does not rest on DNA. It's funny but I see your British nationalism as having a certain amount of blood on its hands, and as for its inherent euroscepticism.... talk about dividing people....

The Cornish Democrat

The Cornish Democrat on "The case for Cornwall"

The Cornish Democrat — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:56:28 +0000

The irony has just struck me of my debate with Manxunionist. The Isles of Man is NOT part of the union but is rather a crown protectorate with a very large degree of autonomy. Its historic and cultural identity is co-terminus with, recognised by, a specific constitutional settlement. if Cornwall was in a similar position I too might be tempted by unionism.

Paul,

Just for the sakeof clarity are you saying you would deny the English people the right to choose regional governments instead of an EP? If so then that is not self-determination. I would campaign for a strong Cornish assembly along with a full and public investigation of the Duchy of Cornwall. However I would of course accept that the people of Cornwall had many other options open to them in any reform process including an EP or fusion with another territory to form a larger region.

The Cornish Democrat

The Cornish Democrat on "The case for Cornwall"

The Cornish Democrat — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:54:37 +0000

As for my Cornish skills they are pretty poor, but I speak Breton quite well.

The Cornish Democrat

ManxUnionist on "The case for Cornwall"

ManxUnionist — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:35:32 +0000

@Cornish Democrat:

"You see you've already forgotten that I consider ethnic groups, national minorities, to have rights, and one of these rights is not to be assimilated into the national majority...."

The argument you make is that there is no rule that the UK must stay as-is. But the same can be flipped your way and say that there is no rule that says that Cornwall should be revived.

And how the hell do you know that Cornwall is indeed "Cornish" as you say? Does that mean that people from other parts of England (including Scotland, Wales, NI, etc) have never moved to Cornwall? Have Cornish people never moved out? No intermarriage between people of Cornwall and neighbouring counties? Cornwall has lived in a vacuum all this time? If the answers are 'yes', then Cornwall has a lot of problems and not the ones that you bang on about.

IOM, for all of its "charm", is not fully Manx. Loads of people from other parts of Britain have migrated there (for the better).

And so what if people were slaughtered? Look at any history of any nation and the story is the same. How many were slaugthered in England at the hand of the English? Cornwall is not unique.

This is my last comment on this board! Nothing positive is ever put forth; the same ole woe-is-me complaints.

Good bye!

Paul Kingsnorth on "The case for Cornwall"

Paul Kingsnorth — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:31:50 +0000

This continuing argument has helped me make up my mind. I am now in favour of independence for Cornwall, Scotland and Wales. I'm sure this will make us all very happy.

I imagine the newly created Commonwealth of England might consider loans at favourable rates to help the Cornish develop an economy again. Though you might be wanting to call for reparations. What Harold II did to you in 1066 was unforgiveable.

The Cornish Democrat on "The case for Cornwall"

The Cornish Democrat — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:40:22 +0000

That's funny Peter I didn't realise the Isle of Wight was a historic nation that contained a living national minority. You see you've already forgotten that I consider ethnic groups, national minorities, to have rights, and one of these rights is not to be assimilated into the national majority, not even if this pleases pen pushing accountants self satisfied with their neat logical map drawing.

Vogon Britain Peter?

"We are sorry to announce that your historic nation and territorial identity is of an inconvenient size and has therefore been scheduled for destruction.

Trust us you'll all be much happier in Plymwallshire land"

What you seem to be pointing towards is the amalgamation of Cornwall into yet another artificial government zone. Well sure it should be offered as an option but I thought you regionalists had learnt your lesson by now. I'm converted to the good arguments for decentralisation and bottom up democracy, I really am. Additionally, even if I do call for the recognition of a Cornish national minority, I'm also convinced of the need for a just and civic society based on equality before the law for all. That being said I think universalists like yourself also need to accept the less than logical nature of human identity. You can't keep drawing lines on maps to fit economic calculations ignoring peoples attachment to their territories. It reminds me of the worst bureaucratic map drawing from the USSR in Central Asia or the Colonial powers in Africa.

Perhaps we might then find working together we get further.

Within your federal UK there are no 'special cases' by this I take it to mean that Cornwall would be too small to form one of the states in the federation (come on Peter stop mincing your words). Is the only possibility for Cornwall to obtain its own strong government structures via out and out separatism then?

It seems there is much we agree on but one key fundamental issue will always divide us. Decentralisation and devolution? Yes! Yet once again we're going to fight to the finish and waste both our energies over what form the regions take. Too bad.

The Cornish Democrat

padav on "The case for Cornwall"

padav — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 11:37:28 +0000

Philip

No, size isn't everything but it can't be ignored either - taking your argument to its literal conclusion, there's no overriding case for preventing the Scilly Isles or Shetlands Isles or the Isle of Wight from going their own way?

There is also a UK perspective, which cannot simply be overlooked. Let's assume that all parts of what we currently recognise as the UK remain integral, albeit within a looser Federal constitutional framework. Such an outcome will require a structure accomodating all parts of the whole in an equitable manner - ie no special cases.

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England

The Cornish Democrat on "The case for Cornwall"

The Cornish Democrat — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:34:55 +0000

Peter,

Size isn't everything and as I'm sure you are aware we will have to agree to disagree on the Cornish question and using ethno national/regional identity around which to build a project for devolution.

Here are some examples for Cornwall to take on board.

Cyprus 794,600
Montenegro 620,000
Luxembourg 483,800
Malta 410,600
Brunei 390,000
Bahamas 331,000
Iceland 320,169
Barbados 294,000
Andorra 83,137
Liechtenstein 35,365
Monaco 33,000
San Marino 30,800
Vatican City 800

Autonomous entities -
==
Macau 538,100
Netherlands Antilles 192,000
Jersey 89,300
Isle of Man 80,058
Guernsey 65,726
Bermuda 65,000
Greenland 58,000
Faroe Islands 48,839
Cayman Islands 47,000
Gibraltar 28,875
Falkland Islands 3,000

American Colonies
================
US Virgin Islands 108,448
Guam 173,000
American Samoa 67,000

American States
(which have far more autonomy than Scotland or the Isle of Man)
==================
Montana 957,861
Delaware 864,764
South Dakota 796,214
Alaska 683,478
North Dakota 639,715
Vermont 621,254
District of Columbia (not technically a state...) 588,292
Wyoming 522,830

Australian States & territories (ditto US comment above)
================

Tasmania 497,312
ACT 336,400
Northern Territory 217,559

Canadian provinces and territories
=================
Saskatchewan 1,010,146
Nova Scotia 935,962
New Brunswick 751,527
Newfoundland 508,270
Prince Edward Island 139,407
Northwest Territories 42,514
Yukon 31,530
Nunavut 31,152

Finally I'd like to bring to your attention this report from the Cornish Social and Economic Research Group (CoSERG). Wrong region, wrong assumptions, wrong strategy opens pdf: http://www.cornwallcoserg.org.uk/pics/File/RSS_Comm_2008_FINAL[1].pdf

The Cornish Democrat

padav on "The case for Cornwall"

padav — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:39:13 +0000

Philip

You will have noted my concerns regarding the potentially explosive cocktail flowing from a direct linkage between cultural/ethnic values and political aspirations, whether it's English or Cornish Nationalism. Some of the vitriolic dialogue present within the comments flowing from Peter Tatchell's original article should have been sufficient evidence to make any rational individual wary of going down that road?

No doubt some in the English Nationalist camp will be jumping up and down at this point and screaming, but what about Scotland and Wales!!!

Truth is I'm also reticent about some of the rhetoric emanating from both SNP and PC but those two parties aside, political discourse within the Scottish and Welsh devolved institutions has been relatively moderate in nature. Northern Ireland - I simply don't know enough to offer an informed opinion about that complex scenario. The recent deal to break the apparent impasse over policing and security in the Province is a positive step in the right direction at least?

Absolute symmetry between any and all sub-UK entities is a false goal surely. Greater London already exists as a template for a sub-UK constitutional platform and that's approx 7.5 million inhabitants? What I do know is that something representing 85% of any given total isn't just asymmetric - it's fatally unbalanced.

Philip - it's not really for me to pre-judge the outcome of a process that hasn't even emerged yet, although we can live in hope I suppose. What is vital is that any reshaping of the sub-UK framework, as an integral element of radical constitutional reform, must take place in an atmosphere of informed consent.

When we reach that point, if a Cornwall + something, rather than a Cornwall only option happens to be what opinion coalesces around, maybe Cornish Nationalists will have to accept that compromise? I do think the nebulous SW England Region stands little chance of gaining wider acceptance in any genuine process but provided some form of mutually exclusive choice between credible options (given sufficient popular demand for such options to begin with) is on the table I'll be happy with that outcome.

However these matters are all conjecture at this point. What's important is that the mass of ordinary people are intimately involved in a valid process of real engagement, not a repeat of previous experiences of sham consultations with closed questions and pre-determined outcomes - that will only engender increased levels of public cynicism and perceived disenfranchisement.

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England

The Cornish Democrat on "The case for Cornwall"

The Cornish Democrat — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:06:31 +0000

Peter,

Thanks for the detailed response. Perhaps you can understand my curiosity and suspicion in context. Cornish nationalists/autonomists have often had interesting dialogue with various types of English regionalist. However when plans for decentralisation are put on the table we find that what is on offer is a Cornwall + Plymouth region; a Devon + Cornwall region; a Southwest region or some other variant. As you can imagine (but perhaps not understand or accept) to a Cornish nationalists this is just not on. I also note that your suggested region of Lancashire and Cheshire combined would be considerably bigger than a Cornish region. Surely then this would be some form of asymmetric devolution / federalism. Federal states of different sizes and populations. Or are you suggesting that Cornwall could have a degree of autonomy but within a larger region.

Forgive me if I’m wrong but I get the feeling that you’d prefer to see a Cornwall + ‘something’ region, and would hope that this was on offer inside the citizens convention.

Perhaps this is irrelevant as within the citizens convention it would be an open and inclusive democratic process and we’d both have to respect the outcome, but in dismissing identity politics as an argfument for an English parliament I suspect you would not hesitate to do the same for a Cornish region.

The Cornish Democrat

The Cornish Democrat on "The case for Cornwall"

The Cornish Democrat — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:43:19 +0000

Quote:

I'm very pragmatic about this matter. Power = the capacity to make a decision and implement it. The word "implement" in this context is seminal to our deliberations

Peter,

Out of interest where do you see Cornish autonomy in this light. Considering its size and location what degree of autonomy would you allow?

Paul,

I don't mean to offend and I apologise if that is the case. OK articles or indeed any articles on the Cornish question are a rarity in the UK media and I was a little disappointed that you used the opportunity to attack Peter Tatchell rather than make positive comments about Cornish devolution.

I don't know how many more times I'll have to say this but I do support the right of the English to decide their own governmental arrangements. To me Self determination does not simply mean an English parliament but rather having the full choice over future governmental arrangements. For this reason I support the Unlock Democracy proposal.

Quote:

Toque has also highlighted, we are ALL minority nationalisms here. We ought to be able, if not exactly to work together, then at least to work in concert

There is a clear difference between national minority nationalist movements such as are found in Cornwall/Tibet, and national majority nationalist movements like English or Han Chinese nationalism. That is as far as my comparison between these different peoples goes. Of course the modern Cornish position is very different to that of modern Tibet; national minority status is all we share.

Quote:

You will not accept even the existence of an EP

I repeat again. If that is what the people of England want then that is what they should have. It's not that I don't accept an EP, it's just that considering Cornwall is currently part of England administratively and would therefore fall inside your EP, I really don't see what is in it for me. English regionalism however has the potential to help Cornwall. If English regionalists comes to Cornwall and explain that they are campaigning for regional devolution and want Cornwall to be one of those regions what do you expect me to say?

Quote:

You demonstrate a strong and active dislike for English people, and for England. It's highlighted very well in your ludicrous suggestion that Cornwall's situation is allied to that of Tibet, and England's to China (tell that to a Tibetan, my friend.)

No I don't dislike English people anymore than I do Han Chinese, but I do however feel solidarity with another national minority in its drive to obtain justice for its cultural identity and greater autonomy. Of course the English should have an EP if they want but I don't see this as righting a great historic wrong. As for the similarities between Cornwall and Tibet. I don't want to produce a list of historic crimes perpetrated by the Anglo-British state against the other national communities that share these isles, but please do study Cornwall in the Tudor period. It's just a question of century Paul.

Quote:

Neither a Cornish Assembly nor an English parliament comes first: mutual respect does. Without that, all debates are fruitless

Agreed, but I do believe you called for an EP before all else? That doesn't seem like mutual respect to me. That seems more like 'we are the English, we are bigger and we want an EP now'. Surely if you want to respect both nations and their equally legitimate desires for a new democratic settlement then the Citizens Convention from UD is the best way forward.

As you have said we are going round in circles so my last words are that I do respect the right of self-determination for the English, which to me, should include the right to choose regional governments.

Oll an gwella

Phil

The Cornish Democrat

padav on "The case for Cornwall"

padav — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:53:17 +0000

Philip

Firstly, it is not a question of what I or any other individual wants in this complex matter. It's about giving the people objective information and an enabling mechanism through which they can express their preference in an informed manner.

There are certain principles that I believe should form integral elements of any process leading to transformation of future UK governance - this is how I would like to see a Citizens' Convention unfold

All (or as many as wish to) of the UK's inhabitants must be acitvely engaged in the process
Informed (strong emphasis on the informed aspect) consent should be present at all times
Elites, ie Government bodies, Pressure Groups, Academia should not benefit from preferential treatment in the consultation process
No options should be excluded from the outset, everything and anything should be on the table, such as reshaping the sub-UK regional map or the independence of England?
If localities wishing to exert a greater degree of self-determination are identified as part of the engagement process, those communities (whatever size they might be) should have clear options available to them
Referenda will be required to test support for/eliminate various options
A final option, backed by a referendum and thus displaying democratic legitimacy, should form the basis of a written constitution

Of course I think we need to realise that no single solution is going to satisfy all shades of opinion because we know there is extreme polarisation of veiwpoints on this contentious matter

With regard to Cornwall, I am generally in favour of much greater levels of autonomy but that general sentiment applies equally across the rest of England.

The kind of radically decentralised UK I envisage would be based on Federal principles. The UK tier would be very different from that which we now perceive, limited (by the written Constitution referred to above) to such policy fields as Defence, Macreconomic Management, Immigration, Foreign Affairs, Diplomatic Service, National Security

The rest would be transferred to smaller sub-UK entities. The shape and size of those entities would emerge from the Convention process and be defined by the written constitution.

These entities would be equal in stature (no more assymetric dispersal of power!) and boast Parliaments, with revenue raising and primary legislative capacity. It also goes without saying that these sub-UK entities would be expected to devolve appropriate powers to lower tiers of governance but for the sake of administrative efficiency, revenue raising capacity would probably have to remain at the sub-UK level.

I've got my own ideas about what such a Federal UK would look like and I have what I believe are sound reasons for advocating such a framework - however the exact layout of that map is of secondary value here.

What I would say is that within such a Federal UK framework, England as a single unit would simply not make sense. For example, a sub-UK entity based on the traditional counties of Lancashire (includes Greater Manchester and Merseyside) and Cheshire combined (there are compelling economic reasons for linking these two counties) has a population and total GDP more or less equivalent to Scotland.

In a Federal UK structure like that outlined above, why would the inhabitants of such a potential sub-UK entity, if offered a mutually exclusive choice between an English Parliament or a more local equivalent based on their Region, opt for the former?

In such circumstances I believe it is obvious that the vast majority would choose a more localised sub-UK entity, provided they were given a clear dichotomy and allowed to express their preference in an environment of informed consent!

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England

padav on "The case for Cornwall"

padav — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:29:48 +0000

Paul

Thanks for your clear explanation

Happy to see decoupling of culture and politics - in my view a dangerous and potentially explosive cocktail.

Small technical point but one that has some bearing on our discussion. England is not a Nation State, the UK is a State, England can lay claim to nationhood but there is some basis in Cornwall's claim to similar status and if we go back far enough (Heptarchy), so can elements of what now makes up England. Therefore I cannot abolish something that doesn't exist in the first place?

I am a Unionist in so much as I believe that the United Kingdom has a constitutional role to play during the next 50 years or so - the pace of change increases incrementally with each passing year so postulating beyond that timescale seems pointless.

Like you I also want to see a radically different United Kingdom emerge as soon as possible but I accept that such change cannot (and should not) happen "overnight". A UK that is fundamentally decentralised and built on principles of social justice, a more equitable distribution of finite resources.

However, I am also conscious of the intrinsically interconnected and interdependent nature of our global environment, which is why I am strongly in favour of much closer integration within a reformed and democratized European structure - something radically different from the prevailing "Europe of Nation (member) States" orthodoxy.

Given this background context, my preferred route to an equitable UK constitutional settlement would be some kind of mechanism through which the entire UK population was engaged in a meaningful conversation about how they wanted to be governed during the 50 year timeframe mentioned above. That's why I strongly support the Citizens' Convention model advocated by Unlock Democracy.

Through that vehicle, different viewpoints will no doubt be expressed and eventually contrasting opinions will coalesce around varying proposals. One of those proposals might be a UK structure based on four "traditional" Nations but an alternative might be a Federal UK based on a more diverse array of entities, including English Regions. The shape and size of such English Regions is one feature potentially emerging from the dialogue inherent within the Citizens' Convention process. It is vital that such dialogue takes place against a background of informed opinion rather than an environment dominated by the usual suspects propagating "populist" solutions.

Eventually the various veiwpoints arrived at must be tested via appropriate referenda to:

Eliminate options lacking sufficient popular support
Secure democratic legitimacy for the final option chosen

This final option would then form the basis of the written document defining the constitutional settlement finally agreed upon.

Provided at some point in the above process people in all parts of the UK were offered a dichotomy of effective choices; You can have a robust semi-autonomous largely self-financing Parliament (with primary legislative powers and commensurate revenue rasing capacity) displaying competency over a range of meaningful policy portfolios either:

a) For England as a whole

b) A sub-UK entity (almost certainly nearer to to you)

I am happy to accept whatever the people choose

The reason why I mentioned Federalism earlier is because reliance on this principle guarantees, to a large extent, the notion of decentralisation because the default presumption is that power will be always be exercised at the lowest appropriate level possible - bottom up culture if you like. In a unitary model the mindset is reversed. Power is concentrated at the top and then they decide what they might allow to be done at a lower level. In this model meaningful power is always retained at the top.

Finally you asked me about the role of localism. Localism is a sham invented by the Conservatives to dupe the public into believing real power will be transferred to a lower level.

I'm very pragmatic about this matter. Power = the capacity to make a decision and implement it. The word "implement" in this context is seminal to our deliberations.

Institutions only exhibit real power if they can fund the decisions they make. To do that they must boast the necessary revenue raising capacities. The robust semi-autonomous self-financing sub-national entities I envisage would control large swathes of policy now routinely micro-managed from Whitehall; Healthcare, Education, Welfare, Law & Order, Intra-Regional Transport, Housing, Culture & Tourism.

To control and manage means by default to fund the above policy portfolios from self-generated revenues. These are huge areas of current UK tier dominated governance. The large degree of self-funding I envisage would necessitate certain economies of scale - therefore the idea of localities the size of unitary boroughs managing these budgets is simply a non-starter. To some degree this form of "Fiscal Federalism" is discussed elsewhere in a another recent OK article

This is the kind of Federal UK structure I would like to see emerge from a process of public engagement and informed consent

Hope this helps you to understand my reasoning.

regards

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England

The case for Cornwall, Tom Griffin

Tom Griffin — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:35:45 +0000

Tom Griffin (London, OK): The debate about Cornwall's constitutional status seems to have taken off over at Comment if Free, where Truro and St Austell MP Matthew Taylor responds to Peter Tatchell's call for self-rule:

Mebyon Kernow support in Cornwall isn't low because we have an unfair electoral system. The simple truth is that Cornwall is not full of people who want a separate parliament – nor, incidentally, did they want one in 1497. In both cases what is wanted is a genuine recognition that poor rural communities such as ours have not had their problems taken seriously, let alone addressed, in decades. We don't need a separate parliament, we simply need genuine local autonomy over the things that matter locally rather than nationally, and fair funding to go with it.