[...] sentiments exactly. More of my sentiments over at Our Kingdom. Share [...]

There is increasing talk of federation or confederation. But how would these work? Would the members (presumably the four countries) have equal staus and equal powers, despite population diferrences? Would any member be able to stay out of a war that the other wanted to enter or start? And how would a federal or confederal system deal with (a not unlikely) situation where some members want more neoliberalism, while others want none of it>

"There is increasing talk of federation or confederation. But how would these work? "

Dunno. Don't care much tho I reckon it would work in practice fairly well. If it stops another Blairite invasion of a foreign country ie Iraq , cannot be bad.

The existing arrangement is losing cedibility fast. No governemnt that professes to be democratic can survive too long if its electoral underpinning is doubted too much and is blatantly unfair.

English parliament is the first step above all .

@ Chris Thomson

A confederation is a group of independent entities (such as the EU) that form a central government. Each country has powers to run their own affairs and the central government is generally very weak.

A federation, on the other hands, is where a group of independent entities will consciously combine to form a single nation (e.g., USA, Canada, Brazil, Australia). And like a confederation, powers will be split between regional and central government. The difference is that within a federation, the central government is much stronger and relevant to day-to-day life. Moroever, the devision of powers and responsibilities between federal and regional governments should be delineated in a written constitution.

If the UK were to federate, a system would need to be devised to ensure that there is proportional representation. Just because a state has a larger population, doesn't necessarily mean that they will wield more power. For example, California has 36 million people and right next door there is Arizona and Nevada, each with less than 4 million people. But the US systems was design to iron-out these imbalances. This is why the presidential candidates spent so much time in New Hampshire and Iowa, two states with more cows than people. In the case of the UK, items that jointly affect all four/five home countries would be handled at the federal level such as defense, foreign affairs, immigration, etc. Local issues like, education, culture, taxation, development, etc. would be handled by devolved governments. In such a systems, IOM, the Channel Islands, and Cornwall could be invited to join with minimal impact to their way of life.

And under a federation, home countries such as Scotland (not to pick on her, but...) could not opt out of military service (e.g., the Iraq war; the first minister could not say "we're not going; but good luck! we'll be praying for you!")

"The only way to move forward as a united country (ie, united with Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, England, Cornwall, and the rest) is to move toward a federal or confederal system."

They say there's nothing new under the Sun, and this certainly isn't. There was a proposal for a federal commonwealth to try and save the empire a hundred years ago - including Welsh, Scottish, and poss. "Ulster" parliaments. It reeks of last ditch desperation.

I think these countries would be better off independent - besides which, if they're desperate for a union, Brussels or Washington seem to be the powerful ones these days.

Great post! The point is that the argument has now moved on from a parliamentary issue to a popular one. The 'English Question' is not going to be answered by any answer to the 'West Lothian Question'. It is now about voice - not procedure.

Anthony

It's hard to see how things could progress towards a federal UK with both the Tories and Labour opposed to it. However, it would be the smart thing for them to do if they wish to preserve the Union in any form. If they don't, then English resentment at their lack of accountable democratic representation will only intensify; and we'll all end up having a big party when Scotland votes for its (and de facto our) independence.

David, aka Britology Watch

The ‘English Question’ is not going to be answered by any answer to the ‘West Lothian Question’. It is now about voice

It always was. That's why I don't hesitate to call myself and the CEP nationalists, even though the word makes many in the CEP, and outside the CEP, uncomfortable.

For me it was always about the nation of England speaking as a nation, and I think that's abundantly clear even in the very early CEP literature.

Resolution of the West Lothian Question is about democracy, but it also happens to be a vehicle for nationalism because Labour's devolution was to the nations of Scotland and Wales leaving England in the void.

And just for the sake of clarity nationalism is not the same as separatism.

The CEP have never looked for a procedural, technical, mechanism to resolve the West Lothian Question.

It's always been an English parliament and English government. I thought that was taken as read.

Michael Langstrom - this may be news to you, but Cornwall is a county in England, despite what a minority of nutters like to think. Minorities always make the loudest noise - remember that.

David S., I presume you consider the royal family, a "bunch of nutters", since the inheritance laws in Cornwall are completely different to those in England proper. Prince Charles receives intestate property, not the Queen as elsewhere. Royals? Nutters? Never!

Oh, and of course those centuries of historical tradition, and a(n un?)dead language - they must have been made up by these "nutters" as well.

"Minorities always make the loudest noise - remember that."

Sometimes minorities have to be protected. Otherwise you end up with mob rule.

p.s. As I expect your thorough research revealed, a number of Cornwall's MPs have also stated that it is not a county, as well as the Guardian editorial. No doubt you consider these MPs and the Guardian to be a minority of "nutters" too.

Ah yes, it's not even a county... it's a duchy - land owned by Prince Charles. Lancaster is a duchy aswell - the term duchy only relates to land and property owned by Royals.. not hilarious claims for independence from people that live in them. Perhaps you'll next suggest Lancashire or Merseyside aren't in England.

PS. you don't take articles in the Guardian suppliments seriously do you?

Whoa, take it easy. Pardon the faux pas! Somehow I have a feeling one day I am going to be walking along the streets of Truro, on a lovely sunny day, refer to Cornwall as a county and immediately get harpoon with a Cornish flag with some nut yelling in the background "Cornwall is NEXT to England, just like Wales!" Okay, I get it!

"English Votes on English Laws sounded straight-forward, and it commanded public support across the UK, but English Pauses for English Clauses will make little sense to the public. Not only does it appear illogical, it also asks us to compromise between the gerrymandered asymmetric democracy of New Labour and English Votes on English Laws, which was itself a messy compromise. Why compromise at all?"

Because an English Parliament, representing 85% of the population, would pose a challenge to the UK in a way that the Scottish Parliament does not. You see how Alex Salmond is playing politics to try to destroy the UK? Now imagine what damage a similar Prime Minister of England would do in a similar battle with a Prime Ministers of the UK. Do you think the English PArliament wouldn't demand powers over taxation, benefits, etc? And with 85% of the British population behind them, they would get it. It would destroy the Westminster Parliament and with it the UK.

"England will be governed still as the UK, and for the UK, with Scottish ministers exercising power without responsibility, presiding over the formulation and introduction of laws that do not affect the people that elected them."

I don't see why that is a problem, provided that those ministers are unable to IMPOSE their policies on a reluctant England. Frankly, you could - constitutionally - have a Prime Minister from anywhere you wanted. What matters is not which constituency's electorate he is accountable to (that just concerns him as an MP, not as a minister) but which nation's representatives he is accountable to.

The CEP's logic seems to be, if Scotland has it, England must have it too. Well, England doesn't need to spend half a billion on a Parliament, when we have one in London. England doesn't need to spend millions on another 500 MPs when we have them in London. We don't need to pay the wages of a second Prime Minister, another dozen ministers and scores of junior ministers and special advisers.

Frankly, if the little CEPers envy Scotland so much, then in a United Kingdom, with freedom of movement, there's nothing to stop them moving there.

Some people from Lancashire I know might claim (semi-jokingly) that it was a country in its own right; well, and Merseyside, definitely a foreign country to us southerners!

"Perhaps you’ll next suggest Lancashire or Merseyside aren’t in England."

Well, if you can demonstrate that Lancashire and Merseyside have a tradition going back over a thousand years of many of their natives not considering themselves English, a nationalist movement of sorts, their own language, or indeed acceptance by some people outside these areas that they are (a) nation(s) in their own right... then perhaps I will accept that these are in the same situation as Cornwall. Perhaps you could also show me where the European Union has noted them as a minority as well.

The simple fact is that they aren't. The indigenous non-English heritage of Merseyside, if there can be said to be any would be in the Marcher territories bordering on Wales. Europe forced the Brits some recognition of Cornwall, I can say the same for the counties you mentioned.

"not hilarious claims for independence from people that live in them."

If you knew anything about the subject, most of the stuff in Cornwall is for an Assembly, and the recognition of Cornwall as the fourth nation of the UK,

Cornwall has more right to be called a nation than the construct named Northern Ireland which is of relatively recent origin, and not considered a nation by either unionist or nationalist.

The Duchy of Cornwall is not 'owned' by anyone it is the territory of the Cornish people and always has been. The Charters of 1337 created a Duke, not a Duchy. The 2nd and 3rd Charters gave the Duke the powers of a sovereign, i.e. Kings writ and power of exchequer.

The Cornish were charged double (foreigners) tax on their tin production for 600 years.

The English monarchs rules over Anglia et Cornubia. English maps showed Cornwall separate from England.

The fact that Charles Windsor now claims the Duchy to be nothing more than a "well managed private estate" is nothing short of illegal ownership.

He has the power to intervene in any court proceedings in Cornwall that may affect his profits. The County Council, another illegal imposition on Cornwall is an administrative political process, it does not make Cornwall a county of England, only administered as one. They too have to do everything in their power to protect the Duke's profits. When they did have the balls to stand up to one of his planning applications he overrode the decision.

Does that sound like a private business? Of course not.

The very fact that the Duke still uses his royal prerogative to extract million out of Cornwall each year, a right given to him in the Charters is also proof that Cornwall is extra territorial to England. Unless the Duke is telling lies,and no royal would be seen to do that would they?

It is easy for you to jump to conclusions about the constitutional status of the Duchy but your comments do not reflect any kind of actual knowledge about the subject, only ignorant bias that would be classed as racist if the only the UK government accepted Europe's opinion that Cornwall is a National Minority of the UK. If they did that though it would put an end to a lot of the corruption going on in Cornwall's land grabbing/house building policies. It would also bring the Duke out into the light where he'd be exposed as a secret sovereign who's only in it for the money.

You may like to enlighten yourself on the real picture by visiting the Cornish Stannary Parliament website, there you can read how PII gagging orders are imposed on court cases for petty theft becuase the evidence threatened to expose the Duke's position and Cornwall as being next to England not in it.

I look forward to a federal state where the Cornish can finally prosper under their own steam. With Tin now at a record high - four times the price it was when they shut South Crofty in 98, we are sitting on some massive natural resources.

And because its tin and covered by Stannary Laws, the profits will remain Cornish not English. Unless the Duke wants his share of the tin tax, in which case he'll have to reconvene parliament with the 24 Stannators who run the CSP and get on with being the soverign of our Nation, the Cornish Nation that is, not the Anglo-occupied one you mistakenly call a County of England.

Kernow Bys Vyken - that's Cornwall for ever in Cornish, as it has been for thousands of years. Quite old for a made up language don't you think?

Unfortunately for Mr French he is unaware of a few facts.

a) The Crofty tin mine may never open again no mater how high tin prices go, due to the reopening costs.

b) The majority of miners who will wok the tin will be Polish, or eastern European, due to the loss of mining skills in the county, and send the money home to Poland.

c) Even if Crofty were to reopen it would never make enough profit to fund the whole of Cornwall's nationalist dreams of independence, and there would still be a reliance (parasitic) on the EU purse to fund their dreams.

d) There is no will for the minority nationalist dreams in Cornwall, as evidenced by the pitiful showing of Mebyon Kernow in elections.

I can only believe that Mr French is unaware of these facts as he is either blinkered by nationalism, or indeed, as are most "Cornish" nationalists, he is not Cornish.

"There is no will for the minority nationalist dreams in Cornwall, as evidenced by the pitiful showing of Mebyon Kernow in elections.

I can only believe that Mr French is unaware of these facts as he is either blinkered by nationalism, or indeed, as are most “Cornish” nationalists, he is not Cornish."

Do I detect a hint of xenophobia there? A lot of Scottish and Welsh nationalists are English, or from elsewhere in Europe, or South Asian. It's a fact of life - get over it!

The SNP used to be continually told this. And Plaid. Both used to get pitiful showings. Not anymore. It would help if central government would at least acknowledge that Cornwall was different, and not just a dormitory for Plymouth.