The failure of the referendum in the North East was almost entirely due to the white paper *not* giving the proposed assembly power over any such non-elected bodies but merely the right to be "consulted".

To Ray Bell:

Although I am not a fan of partitioning countries into smaller bits -- if you could not tell from my earlier posts -- I believe that Cornwall now has a strongest case as ever for a devolved assembly or parliament. The UK has eagerly endorsed Kosovo's unilateral declaration for independence. That now sets the precedence for devolution and/or independence for all constituent countries. After all, if the UK government is going to back breakaway republics, I see no reason now why Cornwall cannot assert its desire -- unconditionally -- for a devolved regional/national government or even independence.

"your fellow celts in the Scottish Raj"

You really think they serve Scottish interests? Aye, just about as much as Jack Straw and Peter Hain serve English interests!!! A careerist serves no one's interests but his/her own.

However, while Cornwall is considered part of England by many, it is a national, as opposed to a regional question. A Guardian editorial in 1990 pointed to this difference, and warned that it should be constitutionally recognised:

"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."

--------------

"The North East of England got a regional assembly despite a massive 78% No vote in a referendum."

I agree, that's weird. However, it seems clear to me that the north east of England has a problem of bad political representation (quality rather than quantity) - and that regions of Scotland, such as the north east of Scotland also have problems that could be better solved by regional assemblies (post-independence).

"“English version of Switzerland”,"

I wouldn't knock Switzerland too much. Although it is seen as boring by some, it is also prosperous and confident, and has avoided some of the excesses of the UK - like Iraq/Afghanistan, being an American puppet state, wrecking its old city centres, or concentrating all of its infrastructure on one city.

Hotspur

Instead of peddling half-truths and distortion, it might actually help to move the debate along if you contributed something factual once in a while?

Ray Bell "The Cornish “Celts” didn’t get devolution. Despite a massive petition that John Prescott got handed some years ago".

The North East of England got a regional assembly despite a massive 78% No vote in a referendum.

If your fellow celts in the Scottish Raj will not listen to us in NE England, why should they listen to you.?

Peter:

Regarding your reference to our country as an "English version of Switzerland", I take it you would raise no objections to an English equivalent of Switzerland's bicameral Federal Assembly (a parliament) made up of 200 seats in the National Council and 46 seats in the Council of States. Seems more than adequate for a population of seven-and-a-half million.

Secretary Miliband has today said that this nation will recognise the new nation of Kosovo.

I look forward to his future equivalent saying the same, replacing Kosovo with England.

Gareth is right that Unlock Democracy's preferred way forward is a UK Constitutional Convention within which English representatives would discuss how the governance of England could be reformed. That is why we launched the Citizens Convention Bill.

But we will support Constitutional process in any part of the UK (England included) that looks at governance as along as they actively involve citizens and are open ended (ie not simply about delivering one solution). With constitutional process happening in Scotland and Wales to deliberate on their future governance it means that a English convention to deliberate on how English governance could be reformed becomes more desirable.

Ultimately any solution whether it is greater powers to Essex, Lancashire, Cornwall or a English Parliament would also have to be put to a referendum.

I have written about English identity and about the need to address the English Question's, but I have never supported a English Parliament as the solution. Though I recognise the right of England to have one if it wants one.

I feel myself to be English and I want England properly recognised in our constitution, but for me the central issue is the centralisation of power in Westminster.

In our submission to the Justice Select Committee we also called citizens, local authorities or groups of local authorities to be able to petition for greater powers powers. So if 5% citizens wanted to have a assembly in Yorkshire or English Parliament they could trigger a referendum.

I refuse to sign up to something that says basically no further decentralisation until a English Parliament is established. Not only would local people have to wait for a English Parliament, but then the would have to battle the new establishment to get them to hand over there new won powers to the counties, cities and regions of England.

I have always had a suspicion that for some advocates of a English Parliament if England became independent tomorrow they would see that no other changes would be necessary. For me if this happened (something I dont want) then I would still be calling for the decentralisation of power.

In my original post I said that we needed to find a way to address both issues the national and the centralisation questions at the same time.

"I personally have never argued that a region like London or the North East is the same as Wales or Scotland, because they are part of a wider nation."

You're right, they're all part of England. However the far north of England, and the West Country, not to mention the Midlands, have all been excluded, mainly by London-centric thinking and policies.

Recently I had to drive from East Anglia to the A1. Looking at the road map, it was obvious that although there was fairly good coverage of the major cities that straddle England across its "midriff", the roads connecting Norwich to there were appalling. It seems that the east-west links were unimportant, whereas if I'd gone to London, the roads would have been several times better.

"With the exception of Cornwall none of the local identities in England are national in character, but this does not mean that they are not real or meaningful."

I hope you are beginning to realise that Cornwall is a unique case, and is not merely another English county.

"In Northumberland, the imposition of unitary aurthorities and the scrapping of Berwick council has led to Berwick wanting to join scotland."

I think you'll find it goes back much further than that. And it's not to do with healthcare either. Berwick (which is the bit north of the Tweed, not all the stuff to the south of it like Tweedmouth and Spittal) was only formally absorbed into England in the 19th century, mainly by stealth. For decades a certain number of people there have either identified as Scots or Berwickers rather than English.

Don't be fooled by the press into thinking this is another Johnny-come-lately issue.

'It’s unfairness based on “national” devolution for so-called “Celts” and “regional” devolution for the “mongrel” English that started this more-than- faintly-fascist -smelling state of affairs.'

The term "Celt" is a shorthand, it's doesn't matter if it's completely historically accurate.

The Cornish "Celts" didn't get devolution. Despite a massive petition that John Prescott got handed some years ago.

Why do certain people have such difficulty in seeing Cornwall outside an artificial grouping with Devon, Somerset etc? The demand in Cornwall is for Cornish devolution, not a south west region. It's not too small either. The Channel Islands, and Isle of Man have a FRACTION of the Cornish population, but it's okay for them to be devolved, because they're tax havens!!!

Maybe the regionalists could spell out the exact powers they envisage for their regional assemblies. Apart from a commitment to decentralisation, I am not sure what would be decentralised. There is a danger that the existence of these regional parliaments would fix all decentralised power at exactly this level. I believe the vast majority of decisions would be best taken at a smaller level (what is normally called localism, as opposed to regionalism).

In my mind, for example, individual schools should have more freedom, and the need to over see them would come from assigning school places. This is currently exercised by County level LEAs. What would regions bring? Hospitals who specialise or share ambulance services may want to work together, but again this is a smaller than county level. Would rural concerns be more addressed just because the big city government is based in is Birmingham or Manchester, and not London?

I can see only a couple of cases in which regions would provide something. One is some kind of regional Barnett-like formula to ensure fair funding, again something that could be done more locally. Maybe transport developments like major roads and airports is possible.

Is it really worth all the expense and hassle of new parliaments for so few decisions. A House of Commons committee system or Counties collaborating would seem more efficient.

Also, unless full Scottish parliament powers are given to regions, which seems unlikely and probably not wanted, regionalisation fails to solve the West Lothian question. You say county, city or regional level for power. If you want it to be regions of around 5 million then I am afraid I am not convinced of the benefits.

You don't make sense, Peter. None at all. And you have changed your stance from some little time ago when you were in favour of an English Parliament.

The North East of England voted 78% NO to regionalisation. But recent national polls show around around 67% of those in England are in favour of an English Parliament.

Nationally representative parliament first, please, then anything else.

Personally I prefer our ancient counties to regonalisation any day of the week. And complete independence for all, including the current county of Cornwall if it wants it. These proud, historic nations do not want the Barnett Formula and MPs who drag the names of their countries through the mud.

And England is waking up to the fact that the Union is a major disadvantage to it.

I do not want non-accountable MPs deciding the future of my countryt. I want the same rights as the Welsh and Scots.

It's unfairness based on "national" devolution for so-called "Celts" and "regional" devolution for the "mongrel" English that started this more-than- faintly-fascist -smelling state of affairs.

Peter , look at your past writings about England - and tell me what changed your view? I'm most interested to know!

Cart before the horse.

It's all very well saying that England should have the right to decide but Unlock Democracy have no policy on how this might conceivably happen. They'll just push for decentralisation by hook or by crook and to hell with recognising that England is a nation and that the English people have the right to decide their own governance. This is why despite supporting many of Unlock Democracy's policies I have never joined.

Peter Facey has in the past called for a UK-wide constitutional convention to address the England Question. We know from the way the Wendy Commission has tried to shoulder out Salmond's National Conversation that a pan UK convention is just a way for Westminster to reign in decentralising initiatives (or claims of sovereignty). In my opinion England should answer the English Question and then Westminster and the rest of Britain can work out how to live with it (as England was expected to do in the wake of devolution to the peripheries).

Great to hear you saying "England is a nation and that the English people have the right to decide their own governance."

In the light of that statement I'm interested to know how you think "decentralisation in England" could happen before the establishment of an EP.

Without an EP, how will the collective English people "decide their own governance"?

An England only referendum? English grand committee style English only vote in the Commons? Or do you envisage re-runs of the Prescott regional experiment until the "right" results turn up?

unitary authorities are being imposed in England against the wishes of local people through out England. In Northumberland, the imposition of unitary aurthorities and the scrapping of Berwick council has led to Berwick wanting to join scotland.

England has had enough of unwanted regional assemblies and unitaries imposed by a british government led by a scotsman. English Parliament first and then devolution to English provinces.

Balkanisation describes Britain’s policy of neutering large parts of Turkish territory after WWI. When used today it has little to do with the Balkans as a geographical entity: instead it describes a policy that intends to divide a territory into smaller, often conflicting territories in order to weaken the entity as a whole. As such, it is an excellent word to describe what Mr Bean and the rest of NuLabour have attempted to do to England.

Peter, your proposed solution does not address the central issue. Devolution for Scotland, Wales and NI addressed them as nations (even though one was a principality and the another a province) and failure to apply the same principles to England will not answer the English Question. An English Parliament has to be established before we can address greater local government (as you say) “the same way the Scottish Parliament may do so”. This would mean equality and therefore the only viable solution because unequal treatment should never be an option.

Peter Davidson "The rationale supporting Regional tiers of governance never went away!"

It has gone away but they will not admit it.

"With the exception of Cornwall none of the local identities in England are national in character"

Good grief Peter, twice in such a short period of time is my badgering paying off? Couple more statements like that and I might consider joining UD.

Joking aside I have experience, not of the Balkans, but the Caucuses, and frankly people should be ashamed of using such hackneyed old formula's to describe English regionalism, Its just pure populism a la UKIP.

You wrote:

"My experience has shown me that you make progress when people from different positions find a way to unite around a common objective"

Great drop these a line then:

CoSERG: http://www.cornwallcoserg.org.uk/

Cornish Constitutional Convention: http://www.cornishassembly.org/

I know I'm repeating myself, to the annoyance of some no doubt, but in the Duchy there are plenty ready to work toward common goals.

Misinformation seems to be standard currency once again.

“The North East of England got a regional assembly despite a massive 78% No vote in a referendum.”

This statement is a gross distortion of the facts. All English Regions have acquired unelected bodies of governance, beginning with those established during the Major administration with institutions dedicated to economic regeneration.

Labour merely seized upon this extant infrastructure and embellished them with new powers. These developments all occurred prior to 2002.

Ironically a major plank in the rationale supporting the English Regional Devolution strategy was to:

a) Introduce democratic accountability into these purely appointed bodies

b) Bring under their (democratic) control many of the rapidly expanding number of Non-Departmental Public Bodies (QUANGO's to most people) that have sprung up since the Thatcher years.

Therefore, to claim that the "The North East of England got a regional assembly despite a massive 78% No vote in the referendum" is very miselading. The rationale supporting Regional tiers of governance never went away!

Peter Davidson,

""a) Introduce democratic accountability into these purely appointed bodies

b) Bring under their (democratic) control many of the rapidly expanding number of Non-Departmental Public Bodies (QUANGO’s to most people) that have sprung up since the Thatcher years.""

Totally agree and support you in this but just to reiterate the actual form of the territories to which power will be devolved should also figure in the debate.