This week the Chancellor confirmed that Cornwall was being selected to take forward a new, more ambitious devolution deal. It could give Cornwall additional decision-making powers in key policy areas alongside measures to recognise Cornwall's unique culture and distinctiveness. It is a very welcome step and Council Leader Linda Taylor is to be commended for getting things to this point.
Linked to the agreement is a more controversial decision about whether Cornwall should have a directly elected leader or mayor in shorthand. I can see both sides of the argument and I am genuinely quite agnostic. On the one hand, having a directly elected leader, or perhaps Ledyer in Cornish (pronounced "Readier") could create in one individual a powerful "voice for Cornwall" and it could strengthen the accountability to local people in a more direct way rather than have a model that relies quite heavily on a Council Chief Executive. On the other side of the argument, the idea of a single individual representing the whole of Cornwall unsettles some of our Cornish sensibilities. Can our historic "one and all" culture be represented in a "one for all" system of democratic accountability? If we have lots of councillors from one party but a Directly Elected Leader from another, or no party at all, would that create problems?
Our Council Leader, Linda Taylor, has done absolutely the right thing by making this a free vote for all Conservative Councillors when the moment comes to decide. That is to say that there will not be a fixed party position that Cornwall's Conservative Councillors will be expected to follow. Each one of them will be able to listen carefully to residents in their own ward, hear arguments on both sides and then make up their own mind. That's how it should be on a big issue like this and other parties in Cornwall should do the same. A development such as this would be an important constitutional change and we need there to be a free and open discussion about the merits of both courses of action.
Some have suggested that there should be a referendum on the matter, but I have to say, I have rather lost my appetite for referendums over the last decade. I was involved in fighting the referendums on the AV voting system in 2011, Scottish Independence in 2014, and the EU in 2016. While we secured the outcome I wanted in each, I thought each one of them was quite painful and divisive. I don't think we need to do that to Cornwall. After some bruising arguments in politics for all sides, we need some time to heal.
Our elected councillors should all be given a free vote and they should have these arguments on behalf of the people they represent. They should all engage their residents and canvass their views as well as play their part to explain the arguments each way.
I will respect whatever decision Cornwall's councillors eventually take on this issue but my role as a Cornish MP is slightly different. Whether or not Cornwall decides to have a Directly Elected Leader, Cornwall is different to the rest of the country, our distinctiveness should be acknowledged, and we should qualify for an ambitious devolution settlement whatever we decide to do on the governance issue. That is why I have tabled some amendments to Michael Gove's Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill coming back to Parliament next week. They would make Cornwall a special case based on our unique constitutional settlement within the UK.
The nature and origins of Cornish particularism are often misunderstood and sometimes even mocked by up-country folk who don't know what they are talking about. Cornwall is unusual. It has a highly unionist tendency sealed through the Crown down the centuries; it is resilient and self-reliant; it can occasionally be somewhat aloof but only ever hostile to other parts of our country when deliberately provoked. It is eternally proud of its distinctiveness. Historically, during Anglo-Saxon times, Cornwall was named "West Wales" and our links with Wales go back a long way.
As we were recently reminded after the passing of the Queen, it is a constitutional rule that the eldest son of the monarch automatically assumes the title of Duke of Cornwall and that has been the case down the ages. The Duchy of Cornwall performs some of the functions that elsewhere fall to Crown Estates. Until the 1700s there was a Cornish Stannary Parliament that had the power to veto certain English tax laws in Cornwall as part of a constitutional settlement to accommodate tin mining interests. An attempt to disregard that settlement led to the Cornish Rebellion of 1497. Cornwall was the only Royalist enclave in the Southwest during the civil war and had the Royalists won would probably have been granted an administrative status similar to Wales.
The Kilbrandon report in the early 1970s acknowledged the distinctiveness of Cornwall and suggested that it should be regarded as a "Duchy" rather than a normal county of England. A decade ago, David Cameron was the Prime Minister who built on this and gave Cornwall special recognition as a National Minority under the Framework Convention. David Cameron loved Cornwall. He came here every year with his family on holiday. He has a Cornish-born daughter who takes one of her names from the North Cornwall Hamlet of Endellion. Of course, it was a team effort. Cornwall Council had long campaigned for this recognition and, in the days of the coalition government, some Lib Dem MPs and councillors also lent a helping hand.
My amendment draws on this recognition secured by one and all. It states that, when making decisions about devolution deals, the government must give special consideration to areas that the Framework Convention covers. That makes Cornwall a special and unique case, and quite right too since it was ever thus.
~George wrote this piece for the Western Morning News on Saturday 19th of November 2022~
