Matt Cardy
Show Hide image

The UK's forgotten devolution movement

Cornwall wants more powers, and some are looking to Scotland and Wales for inspiration. 

“Into the 1960s both the Scottish and Welsh nationalists were considered a laughing stock, and not just by the English,” writes Matthew Engel in Engel’s England. “So it might be wise not to be too dismissive of the Cornish.”

It is not only those north of the River Tweed, or in Wales, who are hoping to gain more power from Westminster. In 2014, the Cornish were granted minority status, entitling them to the same rights as the Welsh, Scottish and Irish to be protected against discrimination. In George Osborne’s last budget, Cornwall gained greater powers over health, transport, skills and business support.

So something may be stirring in Cornwall. “In the last 15-20 years there’s been a real rekindling of interest in Cornish language, culture and Cornish history,” observes George Eustice, the Conservative MP for Camborne and Redruth.

More signs are in Cornish, and the Saint Piran's Flag is an increasingly common sight in houses and cars in the Duchy. In 2001, in response to Labour’s call for "regions" to ask for devolution, 50,000 Cornish, a tenth of the county, signed declarations in support of a National Cornish Assembly.

In Camborne I meet Steve Richardson, chair of the local party branch of Mebyon Kernow, which describes itself as the Party for Cornwall. He was also a candidate in the last general election.

There are two things immediately noticeable about Richardson: the Cornish Pirates rugby shirt he is wearing and, more surprisingly, the thick West Midlands drawl to his accent. Richardson only moved to Cornwall in 2008.

“We just wanted to get involved in the local community. I became interested in politics for the first time and that’s why I joined Mebyon Kernow,” Richardson tells me. “Mebyon Kernow is very inclusive. Quite often people think of Cornish nationalism as being about Cornwall for the Cornish – it's not, it's all about Cornwall for the people of Cornwall, wherever they're from.”

Like many in Mebyon Kernow, Richardson has watched events in Scotland closely and admits to “supporting” the yes campaign. And there are some clear parallels between Mebyon Kernow and the SNP. Both claim not to be motivated by winning greater powers, but using it for progressive ends.

“We want Cornwall to be self-determining but we also want to create social justice,” Richardson says.

Mebyon Kernow’s case for giving Cornwall greater powers rests on three parts. First, Richardson argues that Cornwall’s Celtic culture is “really distinctive” from the rest of England, and needs to be recognised as such.

“Cornwall’s a country for a start, rather than a county,” he says. “People in England just don't understand it. I never understood it till I moved here and started doing some research. Cornwall is a separate nation, just like Wales is, just like Scotland is. It’s England’s first colony in a way and we're still here under colonial rule.”

“A massive democratic deficit,” also motivates Mebyon Kernow and Richardson. “Per person we're actually massively under-represented by elected politicians”.

The problem with that argument, of course, is Mebyon are arguing for more politicians – and there is already one councillor in Cornwall for every 4,000 people. 

The third argument for greater powers rests on the Duchy's history of being left behind”, as Richardson puts it. “Cornwall has got the worst economy in the UK. We think we can do better, we think we can contribute more so why not be able to do that?” As I recently explored, if Cornwall were a country, it would be poorer than Lithuania and Hungary.

Yet, 64 years after it was formed, Mebyon Kernow is still waiting for its electoral breakthrough. The party has only four of Cornwall’s 123 councillors, even if this is more than the Greens or Ukip have in the county.

“It’s a big frustration. Part of the problem is we haven’t got the resources that the big Westminster parties have in terms of money or volunteers and members and we just don't get access to the media in any meaningful way,” Richardson says. “We need to set our own battleground to campaign in a different way and we need to be able to get our message our a lot better. Everything's stacked up in favour of the Westminster parties – and that's for us to break down.”

Perhaps Mebyon Kernow’s moment might never come. Either way, its 600 members, over one per cent of the county's population, are not easily deterred.

“We want an Assembly that's got more powers than Wales – perhaps more like the Scottish Parliament, which is a much better model,” Richardson says. “Who knows, it could be five, 10, 15 or 20 years? Look at the speed of events in Scotland – things can turn on a sixpence. You never know what's going to spark something. It could be that it never happens.” 

Tim Wigmore is a contributing writer to the New Statesman and the author of Second XI: Cricket In Its Outposts.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

People are not prepared to see innovation at any price - we need to take care of our digital health

Correcting the course of technology in Britain does not need to mean taking backwards steps and becoming an anti-innovation zone.

As individuals, we have never been better connected. As a society, we are being driven further apart.

Doteveryone’s People Power and Technology report, released this week, found that half of the 2,500 British people we surveyed said the internet had made life a lot better for people like them - but only 12 per cent saw a very positive impact on society.

These findings won’t be news to most people living in Brexit Britain - or to anyone who’s been involved in a spat on Twitter. The fact that we’re constantly connected to our smartphones has not necessarily improved our communities or our understanding of one other, and the trails of data we’re leaving behind are not turning into closer social bonds.

Many of the positives we experience are for ourselves as individuals.

Lots of consumer tech puts simple self-sufficiency first - one-click to buy, swipe right to date - giving us a feeling of cosy isolation and making one little phone an everywhere. This powerful individualism is a feature of all of the big platforms - and even social networks like Facebook and Twitter, that are meant bring us together, do so in the context of personalised recommendations and algorithmically ordered timelines.

We are all the centre of our own digital worlds. So it is no surprise that when we do look up from our phones, we feel concerned about the impact on society. Our research findings articulate the dilemma we face: do we do the thing that is easiest for us, or the one that is better for society?

For instance, 78 per cent of people see the Internet as helping us to communicate better, but 68 per cent also feel it makes us less likely to speak to each other face-to-face. 69per cent think the internet helps businesses to sell their products and services, while 53 per cent think it forces local shops to compete against larger companies online.

It’s often hard to see the causality in these trade-offs. At what point does my online shopping tip my high street into decline? When do I notice that I’ve joined another WhatsApp group but haven’t said hello to my neighbour?

When given clear choices, the public was clear in its response.  

We asked how they would feel if an online retailer offered free one-day delivery for lower income families, but this resulted in local shops closing down - 69 per cent found this unacceptable. Or if their bank invested more in combating fraud and cyber crime, but closed their local branch - 61 per cent said it was unacceptable. Or if their council made savings by putting services online and cut council tax as a result, but some people would find it hard to access these services - 56 per cent found it unacceptable.

It seems people are not prepared to see innovation at any price - and not at the expense of their local communities. The poorest find these trade offs least acceptable.

Correcting the course of technology in Britain does not need to mean taking backwards steps and becoming an anti-innovation zone.

A clearer regulatory environment would support positive, responsible change that supports our society, not just the ambition of a few corporations.

Some clarity about our relationship with web services would be a good start. 60 per cent of people Doteveryone spoke to believed there should be an independent body they can turn to when things go wrong online; 89 per cent would like terms and conditions to be clearer, and 47% feel they have no choice but to sign up to services, even when they have concerns.

Technology regulation is complicated and fragmentary. Ofcom and the under-resourced Information Commissioner’s Office, provide some answers,but they are not sufficient to regulate the myriad effects of social media, let alone the changes that new technologies like self-driving cars will bring. There needs to be a revolution in government, but at present as consumers and citizens we can’t advocate for that. We need a body that represents us, listens to our concern and gives us a voice.

And the British public also needs to feel empowered, so we can all make better choices - adults and children alike need different kinds of understanding and capability to navigate the digital world. It is not about being able to code: it is about being able to cope.

Public Health England exists to protect and improve the nation’s health and well-being, and reduce health inequalities. Perhaps we need a digital equivalent, to protect and improve our digital health and well-being, and reduce digital inequalities.

As a society, we should not have to continually respond and adapt to the demands of the big corporations: we should also make demands of them - and we need confidence, a voice, and representation to begin to do that.

Rachel Coldicutt is chief executive of Doteveryone.