h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

ExeValleyBoy

I note your comments on the failure of the NE Assembly referendum. The referendum failed for a number of reasons. Like the proposed SW region, the NE was too big, and the proposals placed Cumbria in the NW rather than in a Northern region as locals prefered. The second was as written on anything up to a third of the ballots, not enough powers were being granted to the region by London. Compared wven with the Welsh Assembly let alone the Scottish Parliament which the NE see working, it was toothless.

Regarding the proposed SW region, it is too big, Devon and Cornwall do have a lot in common and form the Westcountry as opposed to the West of England which is Bristol way. We have the same myths, same legends, virtually the same history, and the same accent in English; a Westcountry Assembly replacing the county councils and with real powers might pass a referendum. Possibly because of TSW etc, I felt growing up we had more in common with Cornwall than those counties further east.

With regards to a couple of other postings, Cornwall was part of England when William came over in 1066. It has been an integral part of the English realm for over 1000 years. Part of the realm but not Anglo Saxon. Two centuries later Cornwall raised much of the ransom for Richard the Lion Heart as a sign of loyalty to the English crown. Cornwall did not become a Duchy until the 14th century and more of the lands pertaining to the Duchy of Cornwall itself are in Devon.

To deny Cornwall being part of England is a historical myth like the comfy historical myth in Scotland that Culloden in 1746 was between Scotland and England. Most government troops were from Glasgow and Edinburgh. Indeed Scottish and English archives record the horror the English troops felt at the brutality of their Scottish comrades in arms against the Jacobites. To this I would add that the SNP and Plaid Cymru are very proactive in trying to atract incommers to their causes, there is in the SNP a group called "New Scots for Independence" and as a group English residents in Scotland are more likely to vote SNP than Scottish born residents, including their own spouses! Plaid Cymru, which now calls itself in full on its English literature "Plaid Cymru - the Party of Wales" are trying to follow the SNP lead in this manner. Indeed the most virulent anti-English sentiments I have heard in Wales and Scotland come from people I know vote for Unionist parties, and have even had the SNP try to recruit me. Twice. And Plaid once.

Borders are lines on a map, there is only one ethnically homogenous state in Europe today, Iceland. Remember that Robert the Bruce briefly extended Scotland's borders to the Tyne, and the people in the Border lands historically had more incommon with each other than with their masters in Edinburgh and London. Indeed a battle failed because the men of Northumbria and the men of Berwickshire would not fight each other, because they were family and friends. Still today, many people in Scotland would welcome back Berwick and area a prospect some in Berwick would welcome. Remember to that parts of Cheshire, Herefordshire and Shropshire Welsh was spoken until the 20th Century. And take for example Perpignan in France. What flag flies from its town hall? That of Cataluña as well as the tricolor, but the people still consider themselves French as well as Catalan.

At university in my course Devon and Cornwall were mentioned. I went to Uni in Wales, and the counties were mentioned as part of the plan for Owain Glyndwr's new state, they were the first parts considered for re-integration in the Bryhtonic world. I also had a good friend from deepest Cornwall, many arguements about which county was better were held (Cornwall or God's Own Acre) but attack one in either of our presence we'd turn as one. The counties are family, more unites us then divides us, clotted cream is thicker than water. Certain nationalists use tiny differences to divide people, those they attack the most are those they have closest affinity to anyway, before the breakup of Yugoslavia most Bosnian Muslims considered themselves to be Serbian. Now they are not. Beware the exclusive nationalism preached by some.

Well that is my latest addtion. Hope it is of use.

tb

Tivvyboy,

Well said.

I believe that the sense of unity between Devon and Cornwall goes back deeper into time than TSW - perhaps even further than Westward (& Gus Honeybun) - tongue in cheek - but it is true that we (D&C) essentially share our mass media - interesting point.

Tivvyboy,

I don’t think that one can say that the proposed North East Region was too big. In fact it was one of the smallest of the proposed regions (being a fraction of the size of the proposed South West Region). However, I think you have hit the nail on the head, by pointing out that very few powers would have been granted to the region by Westminster. For this reason, most people would have seen little point in opting for such a region, especially as the county councils would have been abolished.

Concerning Cornish Nationalist claims that Cornwall is not a part of England; there is a twisted logic in their motive for promoting misinformation about the history of Devon. Their claim relies on the supposition that they are unique, and therefore very different from anywhere else in England. The most frequently mentioned aspects of this assumed uniqueness are:-

1. That the Cornish are Celtic, whereas everyone else in England is Anglo-Saxon.
2. That Cornwall is unique in being a Duchy and not a county.
3. That Cornwall was self-governing as it was unique in having its own Stannary Parliament.
4. That the Cornish were unique in having their own Celtic language.

None of these presumptions is correct, and all rely on inaccurate accounts concerning Devon. The truth of the matter is that:-

1. Yes, the Cornish are predominantly Celtic, but so are the people of several other counties in England (including Devon), as confirmed by recent DNA surveys.
2. The County of Cornwall and the Duchy of Cornwall are not the same entities. As you rightly state, there is far more Duchy land in Devon than there is in Cornwall, and the Duchy Charter of Creation (1337) states categorically that the County of Cornwall is part of England, and goes on to list the Duchy lands in a number of English counties (including Devon and Cornwall).
3. Cornwall was definitely not unique in having its own Stannary Parliament, as Devon had a Stannary Pariament of equal standing (if not greater standing) to the Cornish Stannary Parliament.
4. The Cornish Language certainly died out later in Cornwall, but Devon definitely had a Brythonic Language as late as the 14th century (according to Risdon and others).

Unfortunately, the Cornish Nationalists regard the marked similarities between Cornwall and Devon as being detrimental to their aspirations of separation from England on the grounds of uniqueness.

It was interesting to discover that Owain Glyndwr regarded Devon and Cornwall as being prime candidates for a proposed re-integrated Brythonic domain. I had not been aware of this before.

From what I have seen of the devolution proposal, the region would follow the government’s current definition of what comprises the ‘South West’;

http://www.gosw.gov.uk/page.asp?pid=241

This region is a wholly artificial creation that disregards cultural and economic realities. The inclusion of Swindon? Why not just go a few more miles and add Reading to it?

I bet almost everyone in Devon and Cornwall, and most probably all the other counties involved, would view the region as absurd. Yet it is how the government sees the south west and acts towards it.

I support the idea of devolved administration, but I am totally opposed to this ‘South West’ region. I think Devon and Cornwall would benefit from a shared regional government as both are excluded from the mainstream of national policy.

Leaving the cultural issues aside for a moment, Cornwall and parts of Devon are among the poorest regions in the UK. Just because there is prosperity in Exeter and east Devon does not mean Devon is the rich ‘English’ neighbour of Cornish nationalism.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/images/structure/obj12_a2.GIF

This map shows that most of Devon and Cornwall, as a region, is economically quite unlike the rest of southern England, and aside from the far west of Somerset, in a completely different situation to the other counties in the ‘South West’ region.

I am not saying the economic problems should constitute the definition of a region, just that they can be indicative of other, underlying factors, for example the real economy and culture of an area. And these are not necessarily negative; although poorer, Devon and Cornwall often come top in quality of life polls.

But saying that, there are real hidden problems;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/4090415.stm

Similar situations in Wales or Scotland, or the north of England, become the preoccupations of politicians. But Devon and Cornwall are, bizarrely, always taken as a part of southern England and treated in the same way as the other southern counties. Much is made of the north-south divide in England, but there is an east-west divide that is just as real, but Westminster completely disregards.

Just a quick note to wish you all a Merry Christmas!

And to all our Cornish Brethren

Nadelik looan na looan blethen noweth!

I am sure we will have more to say after the holidays!

tb

Ditto!
Nadelik lowen ha blydhen nowydh da

ExeValleyBoy

I think you have made a very valid point. When I was growing up my parents and grandparents would all say that Devon had "northern wages, but southern prices", it has never been particularly cheap to live in the westcountry and with the house prices going crazy it is getting less so. I, for one, could not afford to return. Even if there were the jobs.

The problem is no one really spoke up for the west since the collapse of the Liberals, only now with the strong LibDem presence (a party committed to strong devolved government, not the give the peasants a fraction of what is needed offered by Labour) is there any speaking up for the region. Yes, Devon is a richer country than Cornwall (as pointed out by Cornish Nationalists) but only if you compare Devon and Cornwall seperately from the rest of England. Devon is poor, it is one of the poorest shire counties per capita. I remember seeing a statistic a while back, Devon and Cornwall are the homes of the banger, 33% of Cornish and 31% of Devons cars were over 10/15 years old. The next county had 19%. But also rural poverty is not seen as clearly as urban deprivation, or appears "quaint". And add to that the Westcountry is tourist country. Holiday makers (and we are all to blame, each of whereever we go) don't like to see or CANNOT see poverty in a holiday area. If they are having a wonderful time, so must the locals. But yes, the North South divide is not the Severn to the Humber as claimed, but Portland to the Wash. So unless as ExeValleyBoy rightly pointed out you consider an East/West split, you have to conside Devon and Cornwall "Northern" interms of the income in the region. Labour won't help the west because it votes LibDem or Tory, the Tories didn't do much for the region for 19 years taking the votes for granted.

Plymouth exile, in addition to your points, the Duchy of Cornwall (as seperate from the county) was created as an honourific title for the heir to the throne. Duke of Rothesay is the equivalent in Scotland, but no one claims that Rothesay is a Duchy. Lord of the Isles is also one of the Duke of Rothesay's titles, it was seperate, but is all Scottish now.

With the language, the Cornish language could not have survived as long as it did without a buffer speaking something similar (albeit one gradually reducing), the shear pressure of English would have entered Cornwall much earlier than it did. And if languages changed overnight (!) on conquest as paraphrased in another thread, shouldn't we all be speaking French? After all it was the language of court from 1066 - 1400 and the language of the courts in England until the 19th Century!

One thing I have been thinking about, the claim that the Tamar is a national boundary. Very very few rivers are national boundaries. In (non ex USSR) Europe, the three greatest rivers are the Danube (forms a border only near its end (between Bulgaria and Romania)), the Rhone (virtually entirely within France) and the Rhine (only breifly again between France and Germany, the rest of its flow is within countries.)

Rivers are seldom wide enough to be a national boundary, they are too much of a "road" communities straddle them and they are used for water. Only when they become estauries (the Bristol Channel, the Solway etc do they form more impenetrable boundaries) A boundary more like those of modern nation states would be the Somerset levels, a swamp for much of the last 2000 years, with a range of defensable hills at either side. Of the worlds great rivers, the Nile, the Amazon, the Yellow River, the Ganges do not form Borders. Those which do are associated with other natural boundaries (The Jordan with sharp decents either side)or in the UK the Tweed (there are steep hills either side of the valley), or are modern creations (the Limpopo between South Africa and Zimbabwe )colonial boundary), the Zambesi between Zambia and Zimbabwe (ditto). The Congo between DR Congo and the Republic of Congo is unusual as it is three miles wide as well as being a colonial boundary. The River Plate (Argentina and Uruguay is also very wide and a colonial boundary) and It was too wide for a culture to start on each bank. It is swamps and hills that form cultural boundarys, not rivers which are too important for trade.

and a happy new year to everyone!

tb