I notice that <a href="http://www.wavex.co.uk">IT Support</a> is becoming a big thing.

Thanks, Damian, latest from France. I have just done a further blog at Belfast and Beyond on the inreasingly slippery slope towards more Taser-based policing in the UK.

I also preview the latest weapon from Taser International, which has just been showcased at an international conference for police chiefs: Taser Shockwave - now you can electro-shock lots of people at the same time!

What should happen in England is that we have an English Parliament with more powers devolved to the County Councils under the English Parliament.

As I have said before, I think it is a disgrace that New Labour lumped Cornwall in with the unwanted South West "region" when the Cornish had a much stronger claim to devolution/autonomy.

 But that's Labour for you.  I don't see why the ire is directed at English nationalists, we're a minority nationalism too, although no one ever thinks of us as such.  The majority nationalism on these islands is still - for the time being - British nationalism, so blame those nats.

British nationalists - most of whom demurely describe themselves as unionists -  are the ones for whom the rise of minority nationalisms is a real problem.  Britain is the 'fifth nation'. Nationalism is all about territory and ownership, and Britain has no territory that is not occupied by another nation, and no history that is uniquely its own.  Anglo-Brits like Brown bolster "Britishness" - by which he means British national identity - by appropriating an English narrative.

In this respect English nationalists are in a similar position relative to British nationalists, as Cornish nationalists feel themselves to be in relation to English nationalists.  But it's not English nationalists that are at fault here, we're not in government.

The insecurity of British nationalists explains the regionalisation of England (see Hazell), there needs to be an English rump to Britain in order to sustain the British myth; a large body of Anglo-British chumps to underwrite the whole enterprise.  And there needs to be a British myth because they see Britain as a nation in its own right, and to keep it as a nation in its own right it must compete with the older elemental national identities - which is what makes them nationalists, and not simply unionists.

If they viewed "Britishness" as a state identity instead of a national identity, then a lot of this bad feeling could be avoided because they would avoid conflict with the other national identities whose territory they occupy and whose national stories they claim ownership of.

The Calman Commission is a throwback to the bad old days of royal commissions whose terms of reference and composition guaranteed the outcome the government wanted. It has also been very chary about engaging with the general public. For both of these reasons this commission is a backward step and evidence of the unionist establishment reverting back to type after the non-typical process of the Scottish Constitutional Convention.

But how one argues one’s case is vital. It was established by a majority vote of the Scottish Parliament so it is difficult to argue that it is not legitimate. Its has been set up as a general review of devolution, so it doesn't fall into the category of dispute resolution either. It does, however, subordinate an analysis of which levers of decision-making Scotland needs to reverse decades of decline to the overriding requirement of not jeopardising the union.

This is Calman's intellectual Achilles heel. Professor Calman's own pronouncements, regarding English grievance, suggests he sees the commission's role as primarily that of taking the tensions out of the system. The outcome could, therefore, potentially be judged a success in England, but a failure in Scotland but this depends on how successful each side is in prosecuting their case.

Calman’s usefulness for both Labour and the Tories is that he provides a veneer of legitimacy and political cover for any changes they might want to make. But this is only the case if a settled view in Scotland doesn’t develop that Calman will lead to an outcome that is detrimental to Scottish interests.

Calman's own attempts to trail the commissions likely suggestions on English grievance in order to soften up public opinion in Scotland and the spinning that has taken place around this announcement suggests that those involved are well aware of this danger. So the public's impressions are central to whether this commissions is going to be useful for the unionist cause or not.

It is equally important to those who do not want Scotland to go backwards to hone their critique of Calman in order not to fall into the trap of being seen as fanatical or unreasonable, which is exactly how Labour will try to portray them.

Calman has a right to exist because the Scottish Parliament voted him into existence, but he doesn't have a right to do Westminster's dirty work without being challenged and challenged vigorously.

Its about the culture we're in Damian. As Gus Abaraham over at 1820 wrote last year (http://1820.org.uk/2007/09/the_niemoeller_moment.shtml) the issue isnt the technology its the publics acceptance of the use of violence to restrain even the most basic human freedoms.

This is certainly true in America and no doubt here. After student Andrew Meyers was attacked suppposedly liberal blogs justified the security forces actions.

 See the attack here: http://1820.org.uk/2007/09/land_of_the_free_and_the_home.shtml

So do most people Gareth, myself included - although I haven't visited the extreme South West in many years so it's probably changed quite a lot from my rose-tinted holiday memories.

Although Peter Tatchell raised the specific prospect of increased autonomy for Cornwall, the notion of a largely disenfranchised, disadvantaged and marginalised community struck a chord resonating amongst other localities, notably the English peripheries.

I'm relatively lucky in that I live in an affluent locality in NW.England but it is a fact beyond dispute that large tracts of my Region and other similar peripheral Regions suffer disproportionately when it comes to distribution of finite resources.

These well documented outcomes result in widespread socio-economic deprivation markers; Average Life Expectancy, Child Morbidity Rates, Average Income Levels, Unemployment, Propensity to Chronic Illness and even such mundane things as job satisfaction levels.

Conversely, London (and I know there are severe pockets of relative poverty within the capital) and the South East routinely come out top of the pile every time measures of well-being are compiled.

You believe a solution to these problems lies in an English Parliament and I respect you for passionately advancing that argument. I don't share your enthusiasm for that constitutional vehicle because I believe it will be counter productive, serving only to entrench the pervasive culture of centralism endemic in Whitehall but what I trust we share is a desire to work towards a more equitable society in which such gross disparities are eventually eliminated.

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England 

I’m not that big a fan of celticity myself but the ‘dodgy claims about ethnicity and dubious interpretations of ancient history’ is a bit of a cheap shot.

When the home rule movement came into being during the Victorian period 75 per cent of the population of Wales were Welsh-speaking. We knew we were a different people because we conducted our daily lives in a different language. It was on that foundation that Welsh national institutions were built, mirroring those that the Scots had never fully relinquished. We’re talking about genuine cultural and institutional differences.

Cornwall has a linguistic/cultural inheritance - and a history of linguistic suppression - which sets it apart from the rest of England. Paul Kingsnorth says he does not gainsay Cornish political aspirations but he does sound a little sneering – or is that my ethnic persecution complex speaking?

I love Cornwall too, but I must say I'm not feeling very welcome there anymore!

Obviously there are people within all the UK nations who 'want their own governments.' Wales and Scotland already have theirs, as does NI. England, by far the biggest nation, does not. For me, the next step is that England gets one. It's clearly a priority

Cornwall, being much, much smaller than England and with no economy of its own, can wait, in my view, until the wider 'English question' has been sorted. When England has a parliament (and it's depressing that you have already decided what it will 'do' for Cornwall, before it even exists, by the way) it can then work on how its local government structures will work. In my view, we need radical decentralisation all over England - to Cornwall and elsewhere.

Of course, in the meantime, those like yourself who presumably don't like this approach are free to lobby for whatever else you want. But while I appreciate Cornwall's history and identity, I can't see a stronger case for Cornish self-rule than that of, say, Yorkshire; which is about as regionally distinct as they come. It seems to me that the only real distinction between the two is the 'ethnic' dimension; which as your website shows, you are very keen on. Fine, if it moves you, but ethnic nationalism is dangerous stuff in my view, and you can't have it both ways - either you are making an ethnic nationalist case or a political case for local devolution. If the former, you should be more upfront about the ethnic dimension of what you are saying. If the latter - why only Cornwall?

Finally, as to 'the company I keep.' I don't keep any company. I am not responsible for the actions or words of other people who call themselves 'English nationalists' any more than you are responsible for the Cornish 'nationalists' who attack cafes because they advertise 'full English' breakfasts.

At least I hope you're not, because that seems more like satire than revolution!

I love Cornwall.  How about that?

BT have just effectively removed all proper possibilities of discussions about BT Phorm/Webwise by removing the only thread that was allowed on either the Business Forum or the Support Forum.

Way to go BT "Censorship & Anti Democracy" at it's absolute best!

http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=7395&tstart=0

Actually Paul, I think you'll find that Peter Tatchell also qualified his remarks by advocating the concept of a radically decentralised UK state incorporating semi-autonomous Regions - although he did not totally dismiss the idea of self-government for England.

I interpreted his remarks as endorsement of a federal UK settlement but maybe I'm wrong about that?

One major feature of that debate seemed to be the staggering level of ignorance about the true nature of UK governance and a routine misunderstanding of the fundamental differences between the function of unitary and federal solutions.

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW. England

I couldn't agree more Doug, the commissions main flaw is that it lacks legitimacy, never mind competency though.

 Unlike the Claim of Right, or the National Conversation, its simply an ad hoc group packed with appointees, and increasingly used as a de facto forum to lob constitutional issues back at Holyrood (eg. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article5127257.ece)

It's completely against the idea of devolution and a way of avoiding the other channels and structures meant to be in place to resolve dispute and difficulty (the Council of Isles etc). The inherent tensions between the parties may or may not be realised, depending largely on the passivity of the Liberals.

Oh, and I just noticed I had not responded to this part of your response:

Firstly - and this really is the last time I'm going to say this - if any of those nations genuinely want independence, they should have it. Secondly, at the moment, they don't, by very significant margins. The last poll I saw had more English people supporting independence for Scotland than Scots.

Which brings me to the question of 'where that leaves England.' Having engaged in this debate with all sorts of people over the last year or so, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the answer is: 'better off.' The UK's constitution currently militates against England, as does its government, its healthcare system and much of its education system. Solutions of the kind which you and Tatchell posit seem to involve yet more Balkanisation and regional self-interest.

So perhaps the best way of doing this, since we're all so dissatisfied, is an amicable divorce. How about England files the papers, by declaring its own independence first? Then we can have our own parliament, scrap undemocratic regional government and leave Scotland and Wales to pay their own way. An independent England would include Cornwall, I'm afraid, but if a majority of Cornish folk would like then to declare independence from us I'd happily come to the celebration party. Between you and me, I prefer St Piran's flag to St George's. But then maybe an independent England can get itself a better patron saint too. The possibilities are endless. I'm getting excited just thinking about it.

Philip -

Since you have used every Britishness/Englishness thread on OurKingdom over the last year to raise the 'Cornish question' (and even been satirised for it, I noticed; and not by me!) I think you should avoid throwing stones.

You should also avoid silly phrases like 'arrogance and discrimination against my nation', especially when directed at someone who has just made it clear, for about the 94th time, that he supports your calls for more democracy in Cornwall. Oh, and someone who has devoted half a chapter of his recent book (about England!) to explaining your case for democracy in Cornwall!

It's also worth noting my use of inverted commas around the words 'Celtic' and 'Anglo-Saxon.' Neither of these words have any serious historical provenance; both are the relatively recent invention of either romantic campaigners or historians. The 'Celtic' people you speak of never used this term to refer to themselves during the historical period which 'Celtic' nationalists so enjoy talking about. Neither, during the same period, did the 'Anglo-Saxons' - another modern invention for a people who have been collectively referring to themselves as 'English' since at least the tenth century.

Every time I, or anyone else, has written anything about English or British democracy on this site you have popped up and accused them of 'discrimination', or something equally insulting - yet without bothering to properly read what they say. The reason I am sick of this, as I have made clear above and many times before, is that I am supportive of greater democracy for any part of the country that wants it. Only you never bother to read this bit, so fixated are you on your conviction that all 'English nationalists' are out to get you.

I am an 'English nationalist' in the sense that I think England is currently getting a raw deal within the UK setup, and would like this to change. I am not an English nationalist because I have an ethnic persecution complex. These tend to lead to the kind of angry, blind monomania I mentioned, and often to many worse things. If you want to see yourself as 'ethnically' distinct from me, that's your affair. I'm not trying to stop you. Indeed, as I have also pointed out before, I support much of what you say, at least when it comes to the case for more democracy at the local level in your county (sorry, 'nation'.)

Unfortunately, your constant raging attacks on me, which are largely based on your inability to actually read what I'm saying, are making an enemy out of a potential ally. Not very politically astute. Or very polite.

And I wrote the introduction, sob!

Doug are you in no way on a journey? Doesn't being en route from your background imply that some of your past travels with you and some parts of your foresight take time to absorb?