ASK THE NATIONALISTS

I am after clarity. I wish to encourage Cornish political nationalism, which advocates new arrangements for government for Cornwall, to explain thoroughly what is meant at the basic level, identifying which among the several options is sought, and how it would be paid for.

Is there a consensus about these matters among the differing strands of nationalism or serious differences?

Anyway, here are a few basic questions for answering; I’m not asking about the name of the legislature or the organisation of offices, but about the foundations.

1
Exactly what status do you seek for Cornwall?
A souped-up county in England; an administration outside England but part of the UK with a current Wales range of powers; or a current Scotland range of powers; independence within a federal UK; independence outside the UK; or…

2
Why do you seek that status and reject the others?

3
Would this Cornwall be a monarchy or a republic?

4
How would this Cornwall be financed? Where would the money, all of it, come from?
All from the UK taxpayers plus local council tax (the UK tax including contributions from taxpayers in Cornwall); some directly from Cornwall taxpayers, the rest from UK taxpayers; all from Cornwall taxpayers with none coming from the rest of the UK but Cornwall paying towards UK defence; or…

And money through the EU of course.

5
If the money comes from various sources, what would be the proportion from each?

6
How much would this Cornwall cost to run each year?

There are other questions – currency, EU, how the Cornwall government would be organised, local government, and so on – but let’s start with the easy basic ones.

---

EMPOWERING CORNWALL

The other day I read this blog post about decentralisation and devolution in Cornwall.

Linking Cornwall in
While the post gave some staples of Cornish political nationalism, the last two paragraphs were most interesting. I think the current particularist approach of Cornish political nationalism to autonomy was questioned and a practical way of achieving maximal decentralisation here was suggested: Cornwall campaigning not on its own but rather with a general project for all England and “linking into the wider debate about devolution and decentralisation within England”.

If such an approach was adopted, Cornwall “would not be alone; people in other areas would doubtlessly seek greater devolution as well”. In response to comments the thrust of the post was neatly summed up: Cornish nationalists “can help their own cause by supporting decentralisation across England”.

All-England project
I warmly support the idea that we should look for an all-England project for decentralisation and empowerment within England, rather than focus exclusively on Cornwall and contended claims that it is uniquely different (nationalists can insert the word initially before the word within). I advocated this approach as the way to do it in a post on Dan Rogerson’s 2009 bill: How should Cornwall be governed? writing:

“It is in the initial context of a general and ongoing program of decentralisation throughout England that the case for Cornwall should be made not on the ‘fly-blown phylacteries’ of an unconvincing political nationalism. The bill will deservedly fail because it fractures the case for coherent decentralisation across England; and in centring its appeal on the particularist sentiments of Cornish political nationalism it excludes many in Cornwall who do not share them.”

Decentralisation and localisation
There is a rational and democratic case for decentralisation and localisation to the cities and counties of a fully recognised and devolved England which I support. However, I have pointed out in several posts that localism, of course, has drawbacks and can mean postcode pay and benefits and the privileging of parochial prejudices; for example I think that the prospect for affordable housing is very vulnerable under localism. And I have argued that the new unitary experience in Cornwall shows that one man’s localism is another’s centralisation, most recently here. Localism certainly demands a coherent answer to the question of who decides and I deplore that its advocates shy away from these issues. For Cornish nationalists there is also the question of who pays with what money.

Balkanising England
Let me add that I also think that the empowerment of cities and counties is distinct from regionalism, or at least that based on large, artificial regions in England, which few relate to and which many see as the balkanisation and dismemberment of England. Such regionalism has no part in localism and decentralisation. Keep England whole, as it were.

Shift to all-England approach
The shift to an all-England argument for decentralisation from the current and notably unsuccessful Cornwall particularist one would be a pragmatic advance. It is the way to get to the future in Cornwall. Nationalists could see this as an initial approach and could argue for an exit from England afterwards; I
should be happy with an empowered county in England. However, I think that Cornish nationalism, shackled to the idea of exceptionalism, is not yet ready for the all-England approach but we shall see as time goes by.

---

ST PIRAN’S DAY AND MOVABLE FEASTS

Another petition bites the dust. The petition for a holiday on March 5, St Piran’s day, on Cornwall council’s website had 312 named signatures when it closed after a year earlier this month. This result suggests that there is no tsunami of demand.

Cornwall Council agreed at its 29 November 2011 meeting to tell the government that it thinks any replacement of May Day holiday, which the government is thinking about, should in Cornwall be a holiday on St Piran’s day. The unimpressive results of the petition were given to councillors who agreed that the feasibility of a test of the views of the people of Cornwall on the issue should be looked at but there will be a cost to that if it goes ahead.

I’m unclear whether any Piran holiday in Cornwall would be on March 5 or on, say, the nearest Monday to March 5. That would affect the spending results of a change which I think are overstated.

I am pragmatic about public holidays. It really does not matter on what day a holiday is celebrated. No one knows for sure when Piran died, or whether he ever lived. Or St George. It doesn’t matter either. We can cheerfully choose a day when the weather is likely to be sunny and dry and make it a countrywide bank holiday. We can each decide what we individually will call it: St George’s day, St Piran’s Day, May Day, all of them or whichever we wish; we don’t all have to celebrate the same thing. Even if there is a shift to October and the anniversary of the battle of Trafalgar, those who wish can celebrate it as St Piran’s day. These celebratory days really are human constructs like the calendar. In 1752 in England September 2 was followed immediately by September 14.

We already do this. Pragmatically we tend to shunt celebratory or commemorative days to the weekend or a Monday; and since the beginning of the twentieth century the British monarch has had an official birthday in June when the weather is likely to be kind: that’s very sensible.

Ah, sensible. I fear we might not do sensible in Cornwall.

Meeting of Cornwall Council on 29 November 2011 that considered the March 5 holiday request

Minutes of the 29 November 2011 meeting of Cornwall Council

---

CORNISH NATIONALISM AND THE RUB’ AL KHALI

Cornish political nationalists want an autonomous Cornwall separate from England and with its own assembly or parliament. The wording varies and I use autonomy as a catch-all. Ten years after a Mebyon Kernow petition for a Cornish Assembly the party is trying to cry it up. I shall look at the assembly and petition in a later post but perhaps I can focus now on a difficulty that I see in the nationalist argument. I can put it in the form of a simple question: Who gets to pay for this separate Cornwall?

That question is in danger of being lost in the Rub’ al Khali, the empty quarter of nationalism.

The funding question is linked to the form of autonomy and nationalism appears to be divided on that though most seem to look for arrangements short of independence outside the United Kingdom. What happens in Scotland’s eventual vote on secession and independence may well influence how Cornish political nationalists see Cornwall’s future constitutional status.

Present funding arrangements for Cornwall
At present public services in Cornwall, stuff like old age pensions, the NHS, schools, benefits, and much affordable housing are funded directly or ultimately by the UK government from pooled national taxes paid by individuals and companies across Britain, including Cornwall. Industrial and commercial grants are also funded by the UK government from pooled national taxes. The EU returns some of the net funds the UK gives it to projects across the UK including Cornwall; these might reasonably be seen as recycled UK taxes. Local levies such as council tax and car parking charges fund only a small proportion of public spending here – as in any county. The amounts made available from the national pool to Cornwall and other local authorities are at bottom decided by the UK central government and indeed many decisions on local spending are in effect made by the central UK government.

Future funding arrangements
There are two possible ways that an autonomous Cornwall could be funded: from funds generated wholly within Cornwall or from pooled UK funds with some local levies.

Cornwall pays for itself
Is the nationalist intention that an autonomous Cornwall would wholly pay its own way (apart from externals like defence perhaps)? This means that whatever we need inside Cornwall would be paid for by taxes raised only in Cornwall and not elsewhere; and a nationalist Cornwall would take its own decisions using only its own locally-raised money. It would set and collect its own income and corporate tax rates, for example.

Such a self-financing Cornwall would effectively be independent.

However, I doubt that this self-financing is feasible. I do not believe enough money could be generated from within Cornwall to pay for a twenty-first-century state.

Barnett dependency
More likely is the funding of Cornwall based on the Barnett scheme or some such. The expectation would be that taxpayers outside Cornwall would subsidise our devolutionary fling; that is, taxpayers in the UK, largely England and largely London and along with the EU, pay us more from the common pool than we put in. Suppliant devolution, eh; you pay, we spend autonomy. Some destiny that, and vastly unattractive and unpersuasive.

The 2001 petition did not detail funding and the 2009 parliamentary bill for an assembly seemed to envisage Cornwall largely funded by a redistributed pool arrangement. However, the Barnett scheme is increasingly contentious because the three devolved areas of the United Kingdom are seen by many to get unfairly larger per head shares of public spending compared to England (including Cornwall). I think that the present Barnett formula is unsustainable and remains only because UK politicians fear to stir devolutionary waters.

The Cornish political nationalists should tell us exactly what they have in mind financially for their separated Cornwall; and give us their arithmetic. It is not credible to talk about autonomy, devolution, semi-independence, and so forth, and not detail funding; without a published funding scheme nationalism is showering us in hot air and cannot be taken seriously.

Notes
Some recent comments about the Barnett formula are here (letter headed Celtic cash cow) and here (Council taxpayers in England losing out).

English and Cornish devolution 6 September 2011

Hokey-kokey devolution 14 December 2009

---

CORNISH NATIONALIST BLUES

It’s the start of 2012 and I have taken a quick look at what I’ll broadly call Cornish political nationalist petitions though they may attract support from people who are not nationalists. Remember, there are about 420 000 adults in Cornwall.

There are two petitions on the government site, signable by residents in Britain and British citizens overseas. One calls for the recognition of the Cornish as a national minority; it has 793 signatures.

The one calling for a Cornish Assembly has 137.

On Cornwall Council website there is an e-petition calling for a public holiday in Cornwall on St Piran’s day. This is signable by people resident or working in Cornwall. Running since February 2011, it has 311 signatures. An earlier petition on this on the government website ended in January 2008 with 1193 signatures.

Keep Cornwall Whole launched a petition on 31 October 2011 calling on MPs to reject the Devonwall proposals (www.keepcornwallwhole.org/?m=201110). There was no closing date for the petition and I cannot see any information on its progress.

As I have said before, of course a petition does not capture every supporter of the proposition; not everyone knows about it and not every supporter wishes to sign. However, petitions are a public advertisement of a cause and a measure of its support among the public and if these nationalist petitions had thousands of signatures I have no doubt we should be told that reflected reality on the ground.

I think that the numbers signing these public petitions should be compared with the “up to 5000 people” who physically demonstrated for West Cornwall hospital in Penzance in December 2011 (Cornishman 8 December 2011).

Early day motions
An early day motion in the Commons (EDM 2532, 12 December 2011) calling for a Cornish Assembly has ten signatures, three from Cornwall MPs and four from MPs for seats in Wales. An early day motion (EDM 1525, 2 March 2011) calling for a government-made public holiday in Cornwall on St Piran’s day got twenty signatures, three from Cornwall MPs and six from MPs for seats in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

Some earlier posts on petitions
Devonwall revisted 15 November 2011

Cornish nationalism’s thin joys 19 October 2011

Cornwall isn’t signing: update 13 September 2011

Cornwall border (petitions against Devonwall) 24 November 2010

And Cornish tick box on 2011 census (ended January 2011 with 639 of the required 1000 signatures)

---

CORNWALL AND GUERNSEY: YET MORE

It isn’t getting any better. Far from it.

The nationalist project to explore whether Cornwall can learn from the governance example of Guernsey met more biting reality with the story that Guernsey is one of the offshore tax havens used by the very, very, very rich to purchase very, very, very expensive flats in London.

Read the story of tax havens and housing here.

Yes, I know the nationalist interest is about governance not the financial model but I do not believe they can be easily separated; I think the economy and finance underpin and are central to the success of any constitutional entity in the world whether or not recognised formally in a constitution.

Earlier posts on Cornwall and Guernsey
Cornwall and Guernsey again 9 November 2011

More for Cornwall to ponder on Guernsey 18 September 2011

Cornwall and Guernsey 31 August 2011

---

CORNWALL UNRAVELS

I have commented before on the disunity in Cornwall over the distribution of power and resources and the view that unitary Cornwall revolves round Truro or perhaps Truro and Camborne: see the Disunitary post and the Onen hag oll post. From London-centric to Truro-centric in cornat speak, a new centre and new peripheries. Several posts on my blog also explore the disregarded difficulties that localism brings.

The notion that an all-Cornwall council or assembly or parliament would pour harmony on the land, that it would speak with one voice for a united people of Cornwall, is naive. An independent/devolved Cornwall would remain as naturally divided and disunited as it is at present; the conflicts between government and governed and the conflicts thrown up by localism, such as affordable housing, deciding who finally decides, would remain. Such conflicts are normal, even healthy, but, as I explored in the earlier posts, it is desirable and possible in a democracy to explore the underlying issues of principle and arrive at a consistent and coherent approach.

How do actual conflicts about those internal questions, the distribution of power and resources within Cornwall, fit with nationalism’s view of semi-independence/independence? How would a nationalist Cornwall deal with this? What would be its consistent and coherent approach to such internal conflict? Who finally decides what in an autonomous Cornwall?

While we wait for answers, here is a recent expression of the sentiment and concern from the Cornishman, a Penzance weekly paper, on 20 October 2011 about the all-Cornwall unitary council, Conservative-led, and the fair distribution of resources and power within Cornwall:

“an insidious, creeping but increasingly inescapable feeling that Cornwall Council feels it can impose cuts in west Cornwall because we are at the tail end of the county. That because we are remote, out of sight of Truro and far from the authority’s mid-Cornwall heartland, we can be imposed upon and fobbed off …”

Earlier a columnist had written about the all-Cornwall unitary council “leaving the west to rot while millions are spent in Truro and Camborne” (Cornishman 26 May 2011).

I suppose the forthcoming removal of the heliport; and the continuing pantomime over the Scilly ferry terminal; and cuts at West Cornwall Hospital add to the unease in Penzance.

Such concerns, about resources and powers, are an uncomfortable challenge for romantic nationalism. What are the nationalist solutions to our internal conflicts and what are the coherent nationalist principles underlying the solutions?

Addendum 1 February 2012
“Many of the contributions from the public were asking why, in their opinion, the East of the county did not appear to get its fair share of expenditure yet paid as much if not more than the rest of Cornwall.” Cornish Guardian 1 February 2012 (account of a meeting at Launceston)

---

CORNWALL AND GUERNSEY AGAIN

The UK government is at last ending from April next year the tax loophole which lets distributors in the Channel Islands undercut both shops and online suppliers in Britain by shipping goods worth below the threshold of £18 (reduced to £15 this month) to the UK free of VAT.

Entirely legally, companies have imported ‘low value’ goods such as music disks into the Channel Islands and then shipped them out to customers in Britain free of VAT. Last year this loophole cost the British government – you and me – about £130 million in lost tax revenue and perhaps £600 million over the last five years. Closing the loophole will adversely affect the economies of Guernsey and Jersey.

The Channel Islands are also under pressure about their role as tax havens.

Additionally, a report Who is paying for Jersey to be a tax haven? (on the taxresearch.org website 2 November 2011) sets out the effect of local tax policies on people and companies there. It is not for progressive stomachs. For example, in 2000 42 percent of tax was personal, in 2011 this had risen to 84 percent, a vast move of tax from companies to people.

I have discussed Guernsey in two previous posts Cornwall and Guernsey and More for Cornwall to ponder on Guernsey. This interest is because of the Biscoe-Howells study about whether Cornwall can learn about autonomous governance from Guernsey. As I said in my first Guernsey post, it might be said that the interest is the government model not the financial model. I’m not sure one can separate them easily in 2011. I think that the economy and finance are central to the success of any constitutional entity in the world whether or not recognised formally in a constitution.

I do not think Guernsey is a model for Cornwall.

---

CORNISH NATIONALISM’S THIN JOYS

In fancy’s airy land of noise and show …
Like cats in air pumps, to subsist we strive
On joys too thin to keep the soul alive
– Edward Young Satire V

Lacking numbers and persuasive arguments, Cornish political nationalism has noise and show aplenty.

A recent simplistic single-identity flag-ticking show in the Guardian produced a shower of proxy-Cornwall flags. Flags of England and Britain in Cornwall were only a drizzle.

People in Cornwall can distinguish between being Cornish and celebrating it and waving flags on the one hand and being a political nationalist on the other; the former does not necessarily imply the latter as I explained here for example.

Anyway, I have looked again at three extant online petitions about Cornwall.

At the time of looking today, a demand for recognition of the Cornish as a national minority had 684 supporters and a demand for a Cornish assembly had 123 (both on the government petition website; anyone resident in Britain or a British citizen anywhere can sign). New signatures for the recognition one so far this month total twenty six. Even the petition on the Cornwall council website for St Piran’s day as a holiday had only 308 according to the site (only residents or workers in Cornwall should sign). These are woeful figures.

The explanation is that the vast majority of people in Cornwall, by whatever nationality and ethnicity and race they call themselves, think the most important things in their lives are the everyday experiences around home, family, work, friends, neighbourhood, and health, as do people in the rest of England. Appendix 7 to Cornwall Council’s Emergency budget and business plan sets out on pages 4 and 7 what, faced with hard choices, people in Cornwall value most and least in terms of council spending. It makes unpleasant reading for nationalism. Nor are these temporary nationalist hiccups: page 3 says, “Consultation exercises show that issues that are important to people in Cornwall are the same time and time again”.

My advice to nationalists – fas est et ab hoste doceri and all that – would be to cold store the stuff about Edward III and submarines, dump the anti-growth agenda and the unsubtle victimising comparisons, leave Absurdistan, and offer a nationalism that focuses on the everyday issues that matter to people here whatever they call themselves. Credible, feasible, positive,worked-out policies for affordable housing, economic growth for jobs and incomes, and continuing help for vulnerable people – with a detailed and convincing account of how they will be paid for. That’s the way to do it.

Back to petitions. Of course there was the assembly petition of ten years ago. It was numerically exceptional and merits a post of its own.

Notes
fas est et ab hoste doceri: Ovid Metamorphoses IV.428 (It’s okay to learn from an enemy)

You can also reach Appendix 7 here: click on report to councillors.

---

MORE FOR CORNWALL TO PONDER ON GUERNSEY

I wondered in this post if the Biscoe-Howells study of whether Cornwall could learn in autonomous governance from Guernsey would take into account the financial model which underpins the economy of the island (and Jersey).

That model is largely about Guernsey as a tax haven for the rich of course; but there is an aspect that I should like to note.

Last week in the Commons Jonathan Edwards, a Plaid Cymru MP, asked the UK Treasury when it was going to stop the low VAT (low value consignment relief) levied by the Channel Islands on entertainment products, such as music disks, a scheme that is harming shops in Britain (Hansard 12 September 2011 column 1044). The government said it is looking into the issue which might mean action is forthcoming or nothing will happen as nothing happened on this under Labour.

Edwards also asked how much the Channel Island VAT policy is costing the UK in foregone revenue. The answer was £130 million in 2010 and nearly £600 million over the last five years.

Does the study take into account this scheme and its possible end?

Take a look at this post on Richard Murphy’s Tax research blog – and the comments. Murphy has also written about the Isle Man and VAT.

---