Philip Hosking (Cornwall, The Cornish Democrat): Jack Straw gave a speech at the George Washington University about the UK's and USA's constitutional heritage and what a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities might look like. The talk was entitled "Modernising the Magna Carta" - full article here.
The Independent has also produced an article on the United Kingdoms constitution called; Why doesn't the UK have a written constitution, and does it matter? In the article Nigel Morris writes: "Britain's constitution has developed in haphazard fashion, building on common law, case law, historical documents, Acts of Parliament and European legislation." Haphazard seems just a little euphemistic to me, but anyway: what would this constitutional arrangement look like to the people of Cornwall if written down and how would our Cornish Duchy figure in it?
If written, it would include:
The Duke of Cornwall shall be the heir apparent. He shall have Cornwall as a Duchy and the right to control or intervene in proceedings affecting his rights, property or profits. Within Cornwall, He shall have the right to the King's Writ and Summons of Exchequer, intestate estates, bona vacantia, foreshore, treasure trove, the stannaries, gold and silver and Tintagel Castle (amongst other properties). The Duke and the Duchy of Cornwall shall have the right to a Trial at Bar, crown immunity from prosecution and exemption from the Land Registration, planning and Freedom of Information Acts. H.M. Treasury shall regulate as required by the Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts 1863-1982
Doesn't much look like the constitution of a modern and egalitarian democracy does it? The situation, as it stands today, has this feudal relic giving the heir to the throne unaccountable and undemocratic powers to the prejudice of the indigenous people of Cornwall as revealed here by the Cornish Stannary Parliament.
A new constitution will have to tackle the 'national' question in an equitable manner for all the constituent peoples of the UK as well as its crown dependencies and protectorates, but it would, of course, not be the first time that this question has been treated in the constitutional construction of the English and later UK state.
One previous settlement, whilst providing the heir to the English throne with an income - thus relieving the English tax payer of the burden - recognised Cornwall's distinct position in the emerging state. The Duchy which it created is still with us today and is one of the 'haphazard' developments that governs us in a much less than transparent way.
Some have suggested that the process of writing a British constitution would be cathartic if conducted in a genuinely inclusive fashion. I totally agree, and would add that the Cornish public should be active participants in deciding the future of the Duchy, Cornwall and its constitutional position within any future state. Following Cornwall's popular call for devolution, and the growing celebration of its identity, surely removing its last vestiges of constitutional recognition without public consultation would be as unjust as maintaining the that which exists.
A just and modern accommodation of Cornwall demands an open and inclusive discussion with the Cornish people, something that, to date, we have been denied. Simply trying to force this round British territorial peg into a square English county hole is never going to work and shouldn't be tried.
Comments
Cornwall is unlikje Berkjshire and Yorkshire in that its identity is referred to as "national" as though this had much meaning. It is *like* them in that there is no *political* movement towards separatism that troubles the scorers. Scotland and Wales were given national assemblies because they were not only wanted but *demanded*. That is the difference.
"Cornwall’s position and geography mean that is is always likely to have quite a high population turnover"
The same could be said of the Faroe Islands, but because the Faroe islands are actually looked after, they don't.
That's why in the period that the population of the Shetland Islands halved, that of the Faroes doubled.
Britain is an overcentralised state, and the devolution of Scotland and Wales have been the first real challenges to this London-centrism. Other than Ireland perhaps.
AJC,
""The point you raised was why the British state relates to Cornwall like Yorkshire rather than like Scotland""
The real point is why doesn't the UK state relate to Cornwall like Cornwall as opposed to either Yorkshire or Scotland. In such a light please don't forget the petition and that two of our Liberal Democrat MP's are inches away from being open Cornish nationalists.
Anax,
""A surge in Cornish identity during the C19th rising from the Industrial Revolution does not necessarily mean that Cornish identity will be strengthened by subsequent economic change""
True and equally it does not mean that future economic changes will destroy the Cornish civic identity. Given our own democratic institutions any changes would be better managed.
""May I ask what circumstances you think *would* lead to a diminished interest in Cornish identity?""
Don't have a cristal ball sorry.
"Cornwall is unlikje Berkjshire and Yorkshire in that its identity is referred to as “national” as though this had much meaning. It is *like* them in that there is no *political* movement towards separatism that troubles the scorers. Scotland and Wales were given national assemblies because they were not only wanted but *demanded*. That is the difference."
Really? You know that 10% of the Cornish population has already signed a badly publicised petition for a Cornish (not South West) Assembly. Not that the TV or radio covered this. Nowhere, and I mean, nowhere, else in England has such a petition seen the light of day. The wording is also interesting.
Neither Berkshire, nor Yorkshire has any history of being a nation.
This is the assessment that an English journalist (John Griffiths) gave about Cornish rugby in a book of mine. You can tell that he is not convinced Cornwall is a nation by his language, but he grudgingly admits that the Cornish rugby team is worshipped pretty much like a national one -
"Their semi-final was against Cornwall. The Duchy always treats its county side [sic] with the same respect that the rest of England [sic] reserves for the national team. (Indeed, nowadays the Twickenham authorities pray for Cornwall to reach the final each year, to ensure a bumper gate.)"
I've never heard another non-international side described in this manner.
"two of our Liberal Democrat MP’s are inches away from being open Cornish nationalists."
Andrew George and ??
I didn't say it *should* be ignored. I think it *can* be ignored, as it is being. Polls and petitions show a level of desire but not enough of a one to force any action that Westminster is not in favour of, *itself*.
Cornwall needs to show not only that it is in favour of a change but that it considers it a *priority*. The same would hold true of Yorkshire and Berkshire if they felt the same way, as it has of Scotland and Wales.
Agreed and sorry for GTWEOTS.
Cherry picking it may be, but the concept of indigenous Cornish people needs airing. Cornwall's position and geography mean that is is always likely to have quite a high population turnover, especially if a future Cornish administration adopts policies conducive to economic growth. That will probably dampen Cornish identity.
The 'indigenous people of Cornwall'? So you're not one of those cuddly civic nationalists then?
@Ray Bell:
The Faroes are not a good comparison with Cornwall, they're much more remote and there's a stronger language barrier as well.
I would question the extent to which the Shetlands are hard done by. Less population than the Faroes, but they still have a quality of life which amongst the best in the UK.
@Peter Hosking:
Unless Cornwall is wildly out of step with the rest of the UK, I can't imagine Christianity playing a very big role in forming a Cornish identity. Most people in the UK probably couldn't tell you what a Methodist is without checking Wikipedia first.
There will be no british constitution because events will take over. Scotland has its own laws, and there are plans to pass law making powers to Wales. Northern Ireland, forget it.
So who will a british bill of rights be for, England only?
"Methodism may not be a viable component of a modern identity in the face of secularism. It’s possible that Cornwall bucks the trend for dwindling church attendance; are there any statistics to back this up?"
Maybe not, but its aftereffects linger on. The traditional Liberal and Labour parties, for instance, are highly affected by this form of Non-Conformism. After all, we have very low church attendance in Scotland, but some Calvinist traits are still on the go!
"The reason *is* because there is not sufficient demand "
Actually yes there is, as I've already pointed out. Even Prescott was forced to admit Cornwall was a unique case. The Liberal Democrats, who are the biggest party in Cornwall, periodically pay lip service to devolution (but that depends which way the winds blowing)
"Cornwall, Yorkshire, Wales, Scotland - nothing different in their relation to the state a priori"
Erm, yes there certainly is. Scotland has its own legal and education systems, on the go for centuries, and until not so long ago, most Welsh couldn't even speak the de facto language of the UK. There are still people about who were thrashed for speaking Welsh and Gaelic you know.
"It’s a genuine democratic demand which goes beyond party politics."
Right, it's a political demand and the level of response to it is going to be in line with its *political* significance, not to a "national" quality that somehow puts it to the top of the to-do list.
"We are not talking about 'separatism'"
Subsitute the word of your choice. The point is still true.
Anax,
To quote myself because you seem to be cherry picking comments:-
"the Cornish public should be active participants in deciding the future of the Duchy""
"open and inclusive discussion with the Cornish people"
For 'Cornish public' and 'Cornish people' read the inhabitants of the Duchy of Cornwall.
AJC,
I have difficulty in understanding what your point is but if you think 50,000 signatures calling for a Cornish assembly backed up by some favorable opinion polls should be ignored and does not constitute a 'demand' then we'll have to agree to disagree.
Why does the UK continue to ignore the Cornish? Is it because they're so few in number, or because the assimilation progress is further progressed than in Wales or Scotland, or because it's not an offshore tax haven like the IOM or Jersey? Talking of Jersey, Guernsey and Mann, all of these places have a fraction of the population of Cornwall but a hundred times the autonomy, and their own parliaments, so the excuse that Cornwall is too small for an Assembly is pretty poor.
"The Guardian", usually insensitive to such matters, offered up a grim prophecy in its editorial on 8th May 1990 -
"Smaller minorities also have equally proud visions of themselves as irreducibly Welsh, Irish, Manx or Cornish. These identities are distinctly national in ways which proud people from Yorkshire, much less proud people from Berkshire will never know. Any new constitutional settlement which ignores these factors will be built on uneven ground."
So why does the British state continue to equate Cornwall with Berkshire and Yorkshire?
A Draft copy of the 'UK Constitution' as it was thought out to be at end-05/06 7 (i think but cannot recall which) compiled in a single short document is in Jack Straw's back pocket, courtesy of a trust (again i cannot recall which) and the students of Bogdanor's Oxford.
Where is it on the internet? Could this 'strawman' be put up here for comment? Is the UK state we are in legal and legitimate? Perhaps we should see the original draft before those with vested interests which might not been ours get to tinkering? How many ticks for the democracy which is ours would the Power Report give it?
It's out there somewhere. Who will put it here where we can all see for ourselves what it is we might prefer in discussion instead? Or are we going to write our own from square one? When was that?
Gotta start somewhere. Perhaps where we might looking back agree we had got to, before we look ahead to get where we might wish to be? The sooner we do the better. I'd rather the mess that we might make of it - but am confident we won't - than the one we are in. Wouldn't you?
Thanks Keith. Yes, the Bogdanor text you refer to was published by the Smith Institute in a collection called "Towards a New Constitutional Settlement" released around the same time OK was launched in May last year.
Available here:
http://www.smith-institute.org.uk/pdfs/constitution_full.pdf
And blogged by Anthony, here:
http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy.net/2007/05/08/hot-off-press-call-for-new-settlement/
Cheers
Guy
PS
I accept that an 'unwritten' codified Constitution might be a wonderfully flexible instrument of democracy. but in the interests of who in our democracy? Ours, which i can not recall signing up too? Or another, which i can not recall we or our forbears signing up to either?
PPS. Perhaps we should ask our Sovereign, her ministers and our Lords and Ladies, MEPs, MPs, MNIPs, MSPs, MWPs (sorry no MEPS yet) what exactly they swore allegiance to? Could it be the state we are in? Would we rather that it be one of our chosing before thet get carried away with themselves beyond our reach and even that of elective dictatorship into something far far worse.
Time we had an Augean cleansing of stables before no one dare moves for fear of the shit ww are all in gets right up our noses? Or are we already suffocating in our lack of attention to the small print wqrit large around us?
Yes, me too. Who else is ready to go for what we might live for rather than die for the lack of?
"A petition is no more than intersting."
No, it's not "interesting". It's a genuine democratic demand which goes beyond party politics.
"Devolution to Scotland and Wales came about through the fact that nationalist parties actually won elections"
It came about from a variety of factors.
One of which was the Scottish Covenant, a petition which gained two million signatures in the 1950s.
Another was a vigil which was kept constantly for a number of years.
And yet another was the support of people OUTSIDE the nationalist parties, especially in the Labour party. I still can't help thinking that Labour's main motive was not appeasing the Scot Nats here though, as keeping itself in power, if and when the Tories came back for a decade.
"Any history is irrelevant - whether Reghed or the Palitinate of Durham could be classified under “nation” is not a question you even need to ask yourself in the absence of a popular movement towards seperatism."
We are not talking about "separatism" (which is not a "neutral term" by the way, at all), but a Cornish Assembly, such as the Welsh and Londoners have. Do you consider Ken Livingstone a separatist?
"what exactly they swore allegiance to? Could it be the state we are in? "
The Crown I believe. Not the people, not the country, but the Crown. Which is not very impressive at all.
"genetic assays have shown that Yorkshire is more distinct genetically than anywhere else in mainland Britain."
Actually I've heard the same claims about East Anglia...
"Yorkshire did briefly have a “Home Rule” movement which petered out in the 1970s. What was that about having no “national” identity again?"
That's a home rule movement, not a national identity.
I favour regional devolution within an independent Scotland, so that the north east, for example would have its own assembly. However, I do not consider north east Scotland a different nation. Shetland maybe, north east Scotland, no.
"at the end of the day, we English, (yes - ALL of us) are a mongrel people with all the hybrid vigour that that entails."
The Scots and Welsh are also mongrel peoples. And?
Guy (ourkingdom at 11:19pm)
Many thanks for finding it again for all of us. Suggest you stick it up in full under our noses.
Ironic in searching 'My Favourites' that i did not remember it was under my ASI folder. Being GB's hometown, bet he has all along.
Would love to stand against what he stands for when he gets round to facing his electorate in a bid to be the last past the post prime minister of this UK. it would be a first for him if elected in 2009 or 2010 at the latest. David Cameron has told Alex Salmon he will do nothing beforehand that jeopordizes his own chances of being so either.
Wendy Alexander and Annabel Goldie have already got fail safe plans for 2011 should either fail. The former not in more devolution v evolution, but the Home Rule of Keir Hardie, John Smith and Donald Dewar v Self Rule. The latter in pointing to the extant, truly independent Scottish Constitutional Commision as the body to handle the disenfranchising remit of the self styled 'Unionist' parties in majority opposition at Holyrood. Or did someone at Conservativehome add that link as a bracing afterthought for the future? Which leaves Nick Clegg the young devil of the detail of 2009/2010's outcome for the LibDems "Power to the People" to prop up Westminster's 'last legs' If that policy document had been titled 'People of the Power' / 'Democratus' / 'Democracy' , i might have believed him.
Anybody else up for a tilt at their windmills?
Sorry for the typos: tired stumble thumbs. Nit nite.
@Philip Hosking
I'm not versed in Cornish history, then again, I'm not making arguments based on it. A surge in Cornish identity during the C19th rising from the Industrial Revolution does not necessarily mean that Cornish identity will be strengthened by subsequent economic change.
Nor do I need special knowledge to recognise that Methodism will probably dwindle in importance in the future Cornwall. Its role in forming Cornish identity is one thing, but I would not take it for granted that Cornish identity will not suffer as it disappears. May I ask what circumstances you think *would* lead to a diminished interest in Cornish identity?
Anax wrote:
""Cherry picking it may be, but the concept of indigenous Cornish people needs airing. Cornwall’s position and geography mean that is is always likely to have quite a high population turnover, especially if a future Cornish administration adopts policies conducive to economic growth. That will probably dampen Cornish identity""
The rapid industrialisation and de-industrialisation of Cornwall in the 19th century followed by mass emigration strengthened the Cornish identity.
During this period older Celtic ethnic identities became interwoven with Cornish industrial and Methodist identities giving rise to a sense of Cornish civic identity.
Given the correct governmental bodies and institutions I think Cornwall and its identities could steer their way through economic growth.
"Really? You know that 10% of the Cornish population has already signed a badly publicised petition for a Cornish (not South West) Assembly."
Yes, really. A petition is no more than intersting. It does not show an overwhelming demand, nor does it foprce the government into action. Devolution to Scotland and Wales came about through the fact that nationalist parties actually won elections and, at least in the case of Scotland, through a large scale *political* movement for devolution. This has not been the case in Cornwall. When it is, that's when it will be taken seriously. Any history is irrelevant - whether Reghed or the Palitinate of Durham could be classified under "nation" is not a question you even need to ask yourself in the absence of a popular movement towards seperatism.
Seeing as Yorkshire keeps being mentioned, and I am a proud Yorkshireman, it behoves me to clarify a couple of points.
First, Yorkshire did briefly have a "Home Rule" movement which petered out in the 1970s. What was that about having no "national" identity again?
Second, genetic assays have shown that Yorkshire is more distinct genetically than anywhere else in mainland Britain.
However, at the end of the day, we English, (yes - ALL of us) are a mongrel people with all the hybrid vigour that that entails.
Yorkshire folk may be proud Yorkshire folk hailing from "God's Own Country", but we recognise ourselves as English as well - it's not either/or.
Having said that, I do recognise the validity of the claims of the Stannary Parliament's existence and also of Cornwall being governed as historic Cornwall rather than being shoe-horned into a vague "South West Region". Foolish tampering with historic identities will only lead to resentment and unrest - just look at the East Riding of Yorkshire and it's total objection to being forced into the artificial construct of "Humberside".
"No, it isn’t. We’re not really talking separatism, only devolution"
That wasn't the point. The point you raised was why the British state relates to Cornwall like Yorkshire rather than like Scotland. The reason *is* because there is not sufficient demand or at least not sufficiently *politicised* demand. Nothing to do with history, "national identity", rugby, exotic folk dances, anything else at all. Just that the British state doesn't have to care if it is not forced to. Cornwall, Yorkshire, Wales, Scotland - nothing different in their relation to the state a priori, only in the way that the people there actally *do* choose to act.
Ajax,
You should learn a little about a subject before commenting don't you think. People who pass comments without having, well, a clue don't really do themselves any favors do they?
Mining and Industrialization, non English cultural roots, links to other Celtic regions, the predominance of Methodism, geography, unusual constitutional arrangements and much much more have all played a part in the development of a very distinct region and regional/national identity.
Perfect for devolution. What I find surprising is that people who admit the value of devolution set about down playing the largest popular demonstration of an interest in devolution in the UK in years. Why should they want to do this?
Amongst all the other benefits, a more distinct Cornish identity (to outsiders) would be good for Cornish tourism, which must be one of Cornwall's main industries?
The more we value and celebrate our mutual distinctiveness the better for all of us, far better than the coerced unity that vested political interests at Westminster - not that we shoudn't celebrate our Britishness, just give it its proper place. It's ironic that some of the more enthusiastic for multiculturalism are also hostile to indigenous cultural differences.
Can anyone direct us to opinion polls conducted in Cornwall about Cornish and English identity, and desire for self rule?
"The Faroes are not a good comparison with Cornwall, they’re much more remote and there’s a stronger language barrier as well."
Not sure about that. The fact that they are remote means that their economy should be in a worse state than Cornwall. Anyway, the old Cornish language was more of a barrier. English is more closely related to Danish and Faroese than the Celtic languages.
"Subsitute the word of your choice. The point is still true."
No, it isn't. We're not really talking separatism, only devolution - to an extent Wales and London have right now.
"Most people in the UK probably couldn’t tell you what a Methodist is without checking Wikipedia first."
A bit of an exaggeration since, even now, most people in the have grandparents who went to church. Or got hatched, matched and despatched by a church.
Okay, apparently I'm ignorant for suggesting (a) Cornwall's identity may face challenges from socio-economic forces and (b) Methodism may not be a viable component of a modern identity in the face of secularism. It's possible that Cornwall bucks the trend for dwindling church attendance; are there any statistics to back this up?
Anax I have no idea about you general level of intelligence but I'm guessing that as far as Cornish history goes you don't know very much, am I right?
If you could quote where I said Cornwalls identity will not change or where I wrote Methodism will be a large part of Cornwalls modern identity I'd be grateful.
All I stated was that an economic upheaval of a much greater degree in the 19th century had, if anything, strengthened the Cornish territorial identity.
I don't know but I get the feeling that you are trying very hard to misinterprets what I write.
Anyway following the actual theme of the article someone has brought the following to me attention:
"Between 1854-1858 Thomas Pemberton Leigh acted as the law officer representing the Duchy of Cornwall in the Cornish Foreshore Case - a case of arbitration between the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall. Officers of the Duchy successfully argued that the Duchy enjoyed many of the rights and prerogatives of a County palatine and that although the Duke of Cornwall was not granted Royal Jurisdiction, was considered to be quasi-sovereign within his Duchy of Cornwall. The arbitration, as instructed by the Crown, was based on legal argument and documentation which led to the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act of 1858." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Pemberton_Leigh
"Erm, yes there certainly is. Scotland has its own legal and education systems, on the go for centuries, and until not so long ago, most Welsh couldn’t even speak the de facto language of the UK."
Those are merely conditions on which there *might* be founded a desire for devolved government, not bases on which we can posit it. It was quite possible for Scots to be happy with administratively devolved institutions without an overwhelming demand for devolved government untill recently. It is easy enough to spot this demand where it is made, we don't need to extrapolate it from anything else.
"The real point is why doesn’t the UK state relate to Cornwall like Cornwall as opposed to either Yorkshire or Scotland."
It *should* be the real point. I was just reacting to the point that was made.
". You want to know if people are in favour of devolution? Just ask them, that’s the easy way, you don’t need to extrapolate it from anything else."
That's nice to say, but the simple fact is that we only get consulted on such matters when it suits the politicians.
Where's the Scottish independence referendum for example? A referendum with a nice simple unambiguous question, with international observers (to stop shenanigans and fiddles), and a fair debate would be good. The independence vote and the SNP vote are not one and the same, Unionists vote for the SNP, and Nationalists vote for Unionist Parties. I want to be asked about independence, why won't the Government consult me, instead of pretending that they already know the answer?
By the way, I wasn't just talking about 1979, but the 1880s, and 1950s too. Not to mention 1960s, or even 1708, when the first call for a Scottish parliament was made after the Union.
"Erm, yes they most certainly are."
I really don't see how. Or why. You want to know if people are in favour of devolution? Just ask them, that's the easy way, you don't need to extrapolate it from anything else.
"This is a myth."
I did say "overwhelming", didn't I? An overwhelming level of support would have carried the first referendum clearly. But there was no clear victory in Scotland and a loss in Wales of the same scale as that in North East England in 2004. There may have been conditions that lowered the level of support from what it might have been. You might even claim that in Scotland it should have counted as a Yes. Nevertheless, to compare the results of 1979 and 1997, you have to see support as being other than a constant.
"Those are merely conditions on which there *might* be founded a desire for devolved government, not bases on which we can posit it."
Erm, yes they most certainly are. Because they are there, it means that you don't hjave the disentanglement, that the Welsh had, for example.
"It was quite possible for Scots to be happy with administratively devolved institutions without an overwhelming demand for devolved government untill recently. "
This is a myth. Millions of Scots supported devolution back in the 1950s, and signed a petition to support it. In fact, even way back in the 1880s, there were moves to devolve Scotland. In the end, the Scottish Office came to be increasingly devolved, but the fact of the matter was that the politicians were not in touch with the public on that matter. Don't make the mistake that the SNP is solely responsible for devolution. The SNP wasn't around in the 19th century.
We got devolution in the 90s, because Thatcher shut out Labour in the 80s. Not because of some sudden democratic demand. The referendum tapped into the demand, but it did not create it.
Hamish also gives some excellent answers above.
AJC - "It was quite possible for Scots to be happy with administratively devolved institutions without an overwhelming demand for devolved government untill recently."
AJC - The Scottish Home Rule movement started at the latter end of the 19th century, it's probably no coincidence that this was when the modern beauracratic 'nationalised' state began to take shape. This process culminated in the post WWII period with nationalisation of industry and the creation of the welfare state. It's also probably no coincidence that this when home rule as a mass movement started. For most of Scotland's time in the UK the country remained relatively autonomous without a parliament. Scottish industry was largely owned and run by Scots. Trade unions were often 'Scotland only'. Welfare was run and organised within Scotland. Untill the rise of British broadcasting ona mass level after WWII, Scottish cultural life was relatively autonomous also. Centralisation and Anglicisation - wth the two often being the same thing to varous degrees - created a reaction and was at least a significant element in the desire for a parliament.
Post new comment