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 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

@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...."

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 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Good bye!

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.

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 

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 

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 

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

or

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 

Peter - I'm not being 'emotive', or at least not intentionally. I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of what you're arguing for.

Firstly, this is not a 'cultural' argument, it's a political one. I am indeed interested in English culture, but I agree with you that culture doesn't need politics to allow it to flourish. Quite the opposite, in fact: the minute politicians start getting involved in promoting 'culture' of any kind the result is usually a disaster. Culture comes from the bottom, not the top.

The original question I asked you was: why can we not agree both on the need for national representation for England and for devolution within it? I still don't see an answer.

Let me try and make some of my views clear:

1) You're right that devolution within England would not 'automatically' follow the creation of any English parliament, assembly, or legislature. (Bear in mind, of course, that the creation of an EP is itself a devolution).

2) If we ever get to the point of creating an EP, we will actually be creating a new wider constitutional settlement for England. I am personally in favour of this including a commitment to devolution within England; and, indeed, a commitment to an EP being based outside London (which given the current trend towards promoting England's other cities I would see as fairly realistic.) This is what I am campaigning for. I don't accept your response that this is somehow 'unrealistic'. I can't see it being any more so than the creation of powerful regional parliaments or assemblies. Both would doubtless be regarded by the current political establishment as 'unrealistic'; but then so was nationalising the banks a few months back.

3) I still don't see a mechanism for the English 'domination' of the UK you claim such a model would result in. You talk of 'cultural' domination of the other nations; but if this currently the case (and I'm not sure it is) your English regions would hardly prevent it. Ditto any 'economic' domination, which is largely due to the private sector rather than (British) state power. It seems to me that political domination of the UK by England (and especially London) is the current issue; and either an EP or regional assemblies would tackle this.

4) You are calling for the abolition of England as a nation state. You envisage a UK made up of four nations, three of which have a central government and parliament, and one of which doesn't. You must be able to see why the voters of England might resent this. This is why I think the issue of the relative 'size' of England is a red herring. Scotland, Wales and NI have governments not because of their size or population, but because of their cultural and historical unity as nations. England has the same claim to national status. Yet you would seek to prevent it from having a central government. I don't see this is either desirable or politically tenable.

5) This is a political argument, because there are political changes I think England needs, which could only be carried out by a central, elected body. I would like to see an English Bill of Rights, for example, and an English constitution, which protects the liberties of all English citizens. This is not something that could happen under a regional model.

6) Finally, I still haven't heard from you why the powers you (and I) seek at local level could not be exercised through existing local authorities, rather than new 'regional' tiers of authority.

Best,
Paul

Paul

Please stop trying to frame this debate in such polarising and emotive terms. I'm trying to be constructive here but when you ask me to answer a question using such loaded language as: "arguing for the abolition of England" it's like putting a gun to someone's temple?

You set great store by the cultural integrity of England. In pursuit of that aim you routinely conflate your cherished goal of defending and enhancing England's cultural legacy with the emergence of a unified political institution. For me no such direct linkage exists. 

England will be quite capable of existing on a cultural level without singular political representation. In fact many argue that it is such direct linkage that provides an implied threat of extremism from groups "with previous" in this field. I'm not going to enter such dangerously contentious waters here. Sufficient to say that I don't believe those who wish to defend English cultural values need any overt political backing to achieve their aims.

Welsh and Scottish culture was certainly forcibly assimilated into an essentially English dominated United Kingdom framework and survived many centuries of cultural oppression so I don't see how its English equivalent has much to fear on those grounds either if it was represented within a federal UK by an array of Regional entities.

Let's try and simplify this matter by considering potential future scenarios separately.

Let's assume that England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland remain together in some kind of formal constitutional framework and for the sake of brevity we call the entity representing that arrangement "The United Kingdom"

Let's further assume that some kind of new constitutional settlement arises for this entity and that this new arrangement is founded on federalist principles; in other words "A Federal UK"

Within this specific context, yes I am arguing that a settlment of this nature based on four distinct elements called England, N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales would be disjointed and ultimately doomed to failure simply because one of those four elements constitutes approx 85% of the the total.

I am also arguing that for those living in England in the form mentioned above the tendency to entrench a culture of centralism similar or identical to that present within the current UK unitary model would be repeated, leading to the same kind of gross socio-economic disparties we all wish to provide solutions for.

Put simply I fail to see how the English cultural values you hold so dear would be threatened or diminished simply because the territory we currently know as England was divided into an array of smaller more immediate semi-autonomous entities; Greater London, Northumbria, East Anglia et al

I'll reply later about an independent England scenario - not enough time at present.

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England 

Peter - thanks for the reply.

I'm still not convinced. Your only argument seems to be that England will 'naturally' dominate the UK in some unspecified way, simply because it's bigger. That's not an argument that has any basis to it - which is presumably why there are no examples attached. Just repeating it without giving those examples doesn't make it convincing.

You also say that 'a unitary England would simply be a slightly smaller version of a the current UK arrangements and we all know how that works don't we?' This is not really an argument either. If England currently dominates the UK, it's because it has the majority of MPs at Westminster. An English parliament would change Westminster's role, and thus the way the UK works, very significantly.

Much of what you say is based on supposition and assumption. Similarly, your earlier comment that an EP would 'inevitably' be based in London was based also on nothing other than your own view of something which hasn't even happened yet. 'It's inevitable' is simply not an argument.

Two questions, then:

Am I right in thinking that you are essentially arguing for the abolition of England, on that grounds that it is 'too big' in comparison with the UK's other nations?

How do you imagine that abolishing England, for the benefit of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall, is going to go down amongst the average English voter?

Paul, with respect, then you haven't been reading my comments. My concerns have always been based on something utterly objective and thus inescapable - mathematics.

England represents such a large proportion of the United Kingdom that it would naturally tend to dominate, in just the same way as it does now, the political, economic and social landscape. There's nothing you or I can do about that fact.

That's why I will always argue in favour of a final constitutional settlement based on a partnership between equals (within certain obvious constraints). When it comes to the UK's potential (progressive?) future, we're dealing with a blank canvas so let's not build in obvious flaws if we can avoid it?

We have the possibility of building a different kind of Britain, constructed on a decentralised mindset. That's also why I instinctively reject the idea of English Parliament because I believe it will simply perpetuate an already entrench culture of centralisation amongst élites. 

You say I've never shown you how England, within some kind of rejuventated UK constitutional framework would dominate. In just the same way I've never seen any coherent explanation of how England would fundamentally decentralise. On the single occasion that someone did attempt to do that, here on OK, they only succeeded in reinforcing my doubts because it was simply a case of an English Parliament will do this, that and the other to decentralise.

Do you honestly believe that a newly constituted English Parliament would, voluntarily, suddenly give away huge tracts of the powerbase it had just succeed in attaining? If you do, you're simply naive. It won't happen like that, which is why those in the Cornish Nationalist camp articulate the very real fears they hold.

That's why I came up with the federal proviso because this builds in the kind of safety net those of a decentralising persuasion wish for. It creates a constitutional framework that automatically fosters decentralisation from the outset.

You're right in claiming that in a federal UK framework, England would not be able to interfere in any significant fashion, with the internal workings of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but that's not what I'm worried about. My concerns lie principally within England. England as a single unit within a larger Federal UK would represent an essentially unitary bloc. In this respect a unitary England would simply be a slightly smaller version of a the current UK arrangements and we all know how that works don't we?

So, to try and remain both positive and constructive, we could find common ground in adopting federalism as the founding principle of any new constitutional settlement.

I'd be prepared to accept an unequivocally federal England, whether or not the UK still existed at that point. However, it seems rather obvious to me that if England reamined within somekind of federal UK framework, this works inherently against the notion of an English Parliament.

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England 

Philip - we are going round in circles here!!

I'm not asking you to support an English parliament. Just to respect an English desire for national self-determination, assuming it exists - just as I have REPEATEDLY stated that I respect yours (though I of course apologise for not saying so in every paragraph I write.)

If you want me to respect your desire to improve Cornwall, you need to respect my desire to improve England. As Britology has very eloqently stated, and as 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.

I think the difference between us is that I genuinely respect your desire for self-determination, expressed through a legislative assembly. You do not respect mine. In fact, given the opportunity, you eagerly militate against it, as here:

I could see an EP and an autonomous Cornwall working well together. You will not accept even the existence of an EP. This, I believe, is because of the other difference between us: I like Cornish people, and Cornwall, very much. 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.)

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

Oh dear. We're all slipping back into automatic mode again. I am interested in finding some common ground - which means all of us trying to accommodate the needs and desires of others.

Firstly, if all UK nations are independent, this debate is irrelevant. England then has a parliament of its own - it gets Westminster, the original English parliament, back again, and all else follows from there. Then those of us in England can argue about localisation till the cows come home, and I'll look forward to it.

Cornish Democrat - I would like to hear you extending the English the same respect for their national desires that you constantly demand for yourself. You say you support independence for Scotland and Wales. How about supporting it for England? The number of Welsh people in favour of independence is tiny - the number of English people is growing. And, as I pointed out in my last post, more English people would like Scotland to break away than Scottish people would. We may just get there first.

The question is: if the UK remains in some form, what happens then? I am trying to balance the national aspiration of the English - which I am asking you both to respect, and suggesting that no settlement can work without - with the need for more localisation.

Padav - I've heard you say several times that an English parliament would 'dominate' a federal UK. I've never heard you explain how. An EP would have its powers ring-fenced, as the Scottish Parliament does. Those powers would only apply within England. There is thus no way that I can see in which it would 'dominate' Scotland or Wales, anymore than Holyrood currently dominates Cornwall. Please explain what you mean, with examples. Otherwise, I have to conclude that this oft-cited argument about size is a red herring.

As I tried to point out before, this is not a question of either an EP or localisation - it's a question of needing both. I want to know why we can't agree on this. Specifically, I want to know why you, Philip, cannot understand why so many English people see it as unfair that England should be the only nation in the UK with no national government or parliament. You may have no feeling for England yourself - but then very few others seem to have any feeling for the 'regions' you are so keen on (the notion of which, unlike an EP, has been roundly rejected by voters, I might add). It would be useful for us all to try and accommodate the desires of each other without falling back on absolute positions.

Strangely - and in the spirit of (dare I call it?) English compromise and accord that I seem to have managed to kick off (as opposed to kicking off . . .) - I find myself agreeing with Padav that, under an independent England, it should be up to the communities, counties and 'regions' of England to decide what size they wanted to be and - within constitutionally defined limits, so as not to dissolve the new 'Kingdom' (?) of England that had just been re-established - which powers they wished to exercise on behalf of their people.

Bring back the barons, that's what I say! (Joke.) But who knows in what context England will eventually regain the right to govern itself as a nation? Within a federal UK; if Scotland (but not Wales?) separates first; or if, under a difficult to imagine scenario, England goes it alone, leaving the other countries of the UK in the lurch (or in joy at their own independence)? Perhaps we shouldn't indulge in so much daydreaming: the UK government's iron hand still weighs upon England's governance at every level, and the fight to (re-)establish English, and Cornish, national and regional autonomy could be a long one, with an uncertain outcome.

But one thing's clear: there's no way back to the old unitary Union; so let's keep going forwards. 'Unity in difference' - is that a workable slogan for our respective and potentially mutually reinforcing nationalisms / regionalisms?

Paul

You're right to draw a distinction between England and the UK in this context.

If one assumes that the UK remains in some form or another, I would argue that adoption of a federal structure, complete with a written British constitution, tends to militate against an English Parliament, primarily because Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales would still provide models for aspiring English Regions to emulate. Any federal UK structure would only endure if it was made up of relatively equal partners, rather than a settlement dominated by one individual heavyweight.

In short a federal UK made up of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, plus an array of English Regions (Greater London being the most obvious extant example but there are numerous other very credible candidates) makes sense. I know if I was offered a straight choice between an English Parliament and one potentially nearer to me representing a smaller more immediate locality, both displaying the same level of competency, it's a no-brainer which one to opt for?

However, if England goes it alone and by default that outcome requires Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to find their own way in the world, a federal England would be more likely to adopt slightly smaller sub-national units so some of the traditional counties become more credible entities in this respect, although this still presents obvious incogruities; Yorkshire vs Rutland?

The location of an English Parliament whilst important is not so
influential in this equation. I'm still convinced that if an English
Parliament were ever to come to fruition it would be in London - no
doubt about that in my mind but at this juncture it's largely
academic. 

Yesterday I was reading through an English translation of the German Basic Law (its constitution) and there is specific reference made to the fact that sub-national tiers of governance retain the capacity to decide amongst themselves what shape and size they take. In other words sub-national tiers can merge (or divide?) if they believe it is in their best interests, after referenda have been undertaken to ensure democratic legitimacy? Thus three smaller German Lander, Baden, Württermberg-Hohenzollern and Württemberg-Baden merged in 1952 to create Baden-Württemberg.

Sorry about using the deliberately PC description for England but I just couldn't resist the joke plus I didn't want to offend Philip

Hope this clarifies my thoughts?

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England

Padav -

I don't understand what you mean. Federalism within the UK, or federalism within England?

(Incidentally - while I don't want to break this new spirit of accord, your use of the phrase 'the territory nominally recognised as England' is either a deliberate provocation or a piece of extreme tactlessness! England has been a nation since 927! You are not going to get any political settlement premised on its elimination, however much you might like to do so [for whatever reason of your own]. You may as well try and eliminate France or Scotland from history.)

I'm very much in favour of a federal UK, with a UK parliament in Westminster and national parliaments for England, Scotland and Wales, something similar for NI too and maybe even Cornwall if that's clamoured for enough.

Within England though, I'm not sure what 'federalism' means. Does it mean regional assemblies as well as an English Parliament?

I'm not opposed to this idea as such - like I say, I want to see deep devolution in England, not just a parliament, and I don't think either one will work without the other. But are you utterly wedded to assemblies and regions? If so, why are they better than local authorities and councils, which have run local affairs effectively for a very long time, and are based in political units (counties, cities, parishes) which, unlike 'regions' have some historical and cultural relevance to peoples' lives?

I thought the title of this piece sounded familiar -> 

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

Paul

During the (very) long debate flowing from Peter Tatchell's article about Cornish rights to self-determination, something occured to me - something so simple that it will perhaps seem blindingly obvious and therefore rather trite.

I'd be prepared to accept the idea of an English Parliament on the basis of one very simple proviso and that is its unequivocal adoption of a constitution based on federalist principles.

If federalism was enshrined within its written constitution (the fact that the constitution must be in written form goes without saying) this would eliminate many of the fundamental concerns harboured by Regionalists.

Of course the real problem is that provided the territory nominally recognised as England remained within the United Kingdom, the adoption of federalism would by default apply to any reformed British constitution with the UK effectively renouncing its previous unitary status. 

The problem here is simple; A federal UK and an English Parliament seem mutually incompatible?

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England 

Paul, I think perhaps your take on devolution in response to my comments places too much emphasis on ethnicity in a racial sense at the expense of territorial/institutional distinctions.

One of the best descriptions of the United Kingdom I’ve come across is that it is a ‘dynastic conglomerate’; a collection of peoples/territories brought together at different times and in different ways.

And what was the result at the end of the 20th century? A ‘nation’ that included three separate legal jurisdictions, three different education system and four ‘national’ church settlements, with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland enjoying – or not, as the case may be – some form of administrative devolution.

In this context I don’t really identify with your concern that English/Cornish self-rule would be based on ethnicity as opposed to territory.

As for the ‘right’ settlement for England and Cornwall? Being neither English nor Cornish I don’t have strong feelings on the matter and even if I did they would be entirely irrelevant!

I always find it interesting how so many web-based discussions involve a big fight and then a working-through to a discovery that both parties have more in common than they thought. It's a very bad medium for reasonable discussion.

@CornishDem -

I've said it before and I'll say it again: national self-determination is indeed the bottom line, and this has always been my position. I agree with both Britology and you on this. If the Cornish want independence, fine. The slight problem comes if they want autonomy rather than independence, though. More autonomy for Cornwall within an independent England would leave you still beholden to the English - which would mean our constitutional arrangements would be very much your affair. Still, I bet you would find us much nicer than you seem to suspect!

But this is your problem rather than mine, really. I wish you luck with your campaign for more autonomy for Cornwall, and if it finds majority favour there I support it - even though there is 'nothing in it for me.' On that basis, I hope you might be able to support my desire for self-determination for my nation too. And to understand that, as Gareth rightly says, it's the British 'establishment' who are denying both you and I what we are after. Divide and rule, and all that.

@Padav -

It's nice to see some polite and reasoned discussion prevailing here. Let's see if we can cut through the apparently eternal logjam about an English Parliament versus regional assemblies. What, I wonder, do both sides really object to about the other?

It seems to me that those, like yourself, who support regionalisation object to an EP because it will [a] centralise rather than localise power and [b] concentrate power in the south of England/London.

Meanwhile those, like myself, who dislike the idea of regionalisation are concerned that [a] it leaves England as the only UK nation without any political representation at national level, and [b] it is a distraction from what I would see as genuine local devolution - to councils and even to community level.

It seems to me that what you and I can agree on is the need for greater decentralisation. Personally I would like to see radical, 'deep devolution' to local councils and authorities. I would also like to see community power enshrined in law, with the creation of the right to ballot initiatives, community budget control, veto power over corporate and central government activity in a locality, local tax-raising powers and the like.

To my mind, regions as currently existing or mooted are too big and distant from genuine local concerns to be able to do this. As a Cornish nationalist once said to me, in fact: 'why are people in Swindon deciding what happens in Truro?'

I can also agree with you on the need to move power out of the south. I would not want to see an EP based in London. In my view, it should be based in the north.

So let me ask you if we can find some common ground. I'm more than happy to discuss the best way to radically devolve political power in England. It's a passion of mine, as is breaking the stranglehold of the metropolis over our politics and culture. Whether this is through some form of new assembly in local areas or beefed up powers for existing councils, it needs to be done.

Could you not, then, accommodate my desire for national self-determination in England by assenting to the creation of an EP if [a] it was not in the southeast and [b] its creation came with an agreement that one of its first tasks would be to devolve serious power to localities or regions (details to be worked out).

It seems to me this might keep us both happy. If not - what would you object to?