Talk:Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament

[out of date]

The article claims these people are "The CSP are campaigning against the lack of a written constitutional text" and "campaigning, for the Cornish to be recognised by the UK Government" Seeing as they appear to have been inactive for some 7 or more years, should the article be changed to reflect that? Perhaps "campaigned" or "were campaigning for" would seem more appropriate. 03:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

[Untitled]

Is this organisation still extant? Their webpage hasn't been updated since 2008, and there is no mention of them in the local press. Another "Cornish Nationalist" organisation, (see Cornwall 2000 ) which only seems to exist on Wikipedia.Serpren (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament

My problem with this article is that in no way does it address what the "revived Stannary parliament' actually is. Is it a "human rights pressure group"? If so, why is there all this reference to the, now defunct, original parliament.

If it is a revival of the ancient Stannary parliament, and is claiming the rights and privileges entitled to itself as such, then why has it not followed the protocols of the original parliament and held elections in the Stannary towns as are required of it?

There seems to be a case of wanting to "have your cake and eat it" by those involved here.

Clarification please!

Is there not a contradiction here? This "Stannary Parliament" is a pressure group that has no lineage or linkage to the ancient parliament, and has simply adopted the name in order to gain status. They are self elected, have no constitutional role, and carry out none of the duties or requirements of a parliament. The whole “Trull” episode reads like a Rix farce, and there is nothing to indicate the level of support these people have.

Should the article not carry some warnings to this effect?Serpren 08:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. They're not the legitimate parliament, they're a bunch of nationalists pretending to be important. Plenty of us here in Cornwall despise their embarassing shenanigans, and celebrate our Cornish, English, and British heritage equally. 92.23.123.66 (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OTHER ACTIONS

There was no English tick-box in the 2001 census. The present wording (instead of chosing English or British) is ambiguous and might be misunderstood as meaning the choice was an English tick-box, a British tick-box, or a Cornish write-in. The simplest way to deal with this is to remove the reference to English. Alternatively: "instead of chosing to write-in English or tick a box for British." Crococolana 13:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this is quite correct - there wasn't an English, Welsh or Cornish tick box on the 2001 UK Census, only British, Irish, Irish Traveller or the option to write in another identity under the others option. I believe that the English and Welsh options have been permitted a tick box for the 2011 Census by the Office for National Statistics but the Cornish tick box was refused because "insufficient requirement for the data had been expressed by Census users". This seems slightly unfair as organisations such as the Government Office of the South West and Cornwall Council amongst others had requested this data to be supplied. There have been claims that by not including the Cornish option this is institutional racial discrinination against the Cornish and that the government is employing double standards by recognising all the other UK indigenous minorities and many non-indigenous UK minorities, but not the Cornish. The UK government has also made legal undertakings with the Council of Europe to take "resolute action" in support of the Cornish language but in fact does not have an accurate figure for the number of Cornish people or the number of Cornish language speakers. By writing in "Cornish" on the Census 2001, this could be construed as requiring Cornish people to deny their British identity. Persons who did were then re-classified by the ONS as "White British" in published Census data. By having to tick the "other box" it has been claimed that this is psychologically designed to elict a negative response first (in crossing out British and denying British identity) before one's own positive identification can be made. There have been claims that this is deliberate as it intents to make Cornish identity problematic rather than an act or expression of positive and natural identification. The Cornish Stannary Parliament, amongst other Cornish groups, say they support the inclusion of the 2011 Census Cornish tick box as the Cornish are the only UK indigenous language group, UK Census 2001 group and UK ethnically monitored group to be specifically targetted in this way by the UK government - see Cornish demand 2011 Census tick box 81.78.154.167 11:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Clicking on the link, immediately above, shows that on this online pledge less than 400 of the required signatures have been gained, out of the pledge request for a thousand. This would not indicate in any way that there is a strong support for the pledge, and hence little support for a “Cornish tick box.”Serpren 05:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: the pledge offered as "evidence" has now closed, the result? Deadline to sign up by: 1st January 2011 639 people signed up, 361 more were needed So if not even a thousand people, out of the county's population of 500,000, could be recruited to sign up, is it fair to say that this is a lost cause?Serpren (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Is this article neutral and fair representation of the this organisation?? Reedgunner 13:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC) I am happy for most of the content to remain - However there seems to be little or no criticism in the article - Do we need a criticisms section??? I would say that even in the Cornish Nationalist movement there are people critical of the status of the organisation. Do we need to include more references to "racial" nature of the elections to the stannary parliament (IE electors have to be Cornish or Cornish by marriage). I think a debate would be helpfull Reedgunner 14:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the content is OK, but there have been a couple of uncited things added about Operation Chough:

• "The next day BBC television invited the Cornish stannators to participate in an evening discussion programme regarding the case, which was accepted, but later the BBC withdrew the offer" How do we know this?
• "it has been suggested that this is one of the reasons why the case was cancelled" by whom?
• "the case was regarded as a huge success by the Cornish Stannary" how do we know?

The article relies way too much on the organisation's website for references rather than other sources. There are no less than five links to the organisation's own website as references, which seem to have been added to the CSP website recently and may fall foul of WP:COI or WP:V. Probably a good idea to edit down "other actions" into "other claims" which contains the proviso The organisation's website claims that... and people can follow the extlink for the CSP site. If we can find independent references we can add them.

The racial basis of the elections is interesting, but ill defined: I'm not sure what having an ancestor of "direct indigenous Cornish descent" means. How many generations back? I note there is a "Cornish Citizen's Association" presumably open to other races. Oddly, no election results or membership (ie names of stannators) of the CSP are published on their site, which is odd, and the method of election is only obliquely referred to, so its hard to know the significance, or how they square with equality legislation.

There does seem to have been some debate on about the electoral system at http://www.cornwall24.co.uk/, but it's gone now. non-citable anyway. The CSP were deccribed on 25 January last in the Lords as "not exactly a democratic organisation".[1]

Incidentally the group does not figure in the media between 1991 and 1999: is the present CSP a revived revived CSP?

I'm also looking for a decent reference for January 26 decision regarding their challenge to the UK implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. It appears in some uncitable bulletin boards, and was apparently dismissed, but a solid reference is needed.

Lozleader 16:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeh I agree that most of the content is OK - I know some details about the Method of election etc which I am could post - However I will wait for other feed back before making any changes Reedgunner 16:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

14 May 1977 and the Charter of Pardon 1508

Where did the 14th May 1977 date come from? I believe that it originally had something to do with Daffydd Wigley asking a question in the Commons, and I conducted a search through Hansrad and the contemporary media and found no trace. It's not from the Cornwall County Council site cited. We need a good citation: the Cornwall CC timeline page was compiled by the Cornish Studies Library, Redruth. maybe they know?

I took out a para yesterday, and it is back today: As it appears verbatim in another article, and I do not want to get into an edit war, I would suggest that it be edited down to something like:

"The historic Cornish Stannary Parliament last sat in 1753: the revived group claims that as the 1508 charter of pardon establishing it has not been repealed the Stannary Parliament, whilst not in session, continued in existence."

Lozleader 16:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Cornwall's legal right to its own Parliament was confirmed and strengthened by the Charter of Pardon 1508, granted by Henry VII, which added to its rights that of veto over acts, statutes, laws, etc., passed by the Westminster government. These rights were granted in perpetuity and cannot be lawfully rescinded.

In 1977 Lord Elwyn-Jones, the Attorney General for England and Wales, responding to a question by Dafydd Wigley, MP for Caernarfon, on the validity of the 1508 Charter, confirmed that it had never been revoked or repealed. The reference to this is held in the Aberystwyth University library, where Dafydd Wigley deposited his papers regarding this.217.134.71.154 17:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No doubt - the Neutrality tag was put in place to see if people could agree that the current wording of the article was neutral - Please don't delete tags while the consultation is in process,However would user 217.134.71.154 please help expand this article by providing more information about this organisation in particular its elections. Would someone also have ago at a balanced look at the legal rights of this group IE - Is it properly constituted, did the original stannary parliament only have veto over mining legislation or was it wider, is the election method based on race a correct interpretation of the phrase Heirs and Successors, is the revived stannary parliament subject to the later representation of the peoples act, what evidence is there that a convocation can be held without consent of the Duke of Cornwall (if there is past evidence of this can someone site it), what is the relationship with other Cornish Nationalists (IE Mebyon Kernow) I would be very interested to read a concise break down of these points with citations, lastly was the request to summon stannators from the stannary towns ever sent to Penzance and Hayle (I can find no reference in the Penzance Town Council records(There might be another expectation). Most people think the wording was relatively neutral SO I will not return the tag - Not trying to be anti just interested Reedgunner 09:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The papers deposited by Dafydd Wigley are in fact at the National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth. Dafydd Wigley in Parliament asked the Attorney General for England and Wales if he would provide the date upon which enactments of the Charter of Pardon of 1508 were rescinded. The reply, received on 14 May 1977, stated that a Stannator's right to veto Westminster legislation had never been formally withdrawn. 81.78.176.77 17:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the following should be bourne in mind here:

In March 2007 the Department of Constitutional Affairs issued the following clear and definitive statements:

On the question about stannary organisations, there are no valid Cornish stannary organisations in existence. It is noted that stannary courts were abolished under the Stannaries Court (Abolition) Act 1896.

Cornwall has always been an integral part of the Union. There are no treaties today that apply to Cornwall only. With the exception of geographically limited matters such as Private Acts of Parliament for infrastructure works, Acts of Parliament, regulations and statutory instruments apply in Cornwall as they do throughout England, but do not always apply to the Isles of Scilly. There is no special status for legislation which applies to Cornwall or to Cornish localities.

Sentence without reference

The sentence The historic Cornish Stannary Parliament last assembled in at Truro in 1752, and continued until September 11, 1753.[1] The English legal system does not recognise desuetude (laws lapsing through lack of use), and the precedent of the Court of Chivalry, which sat in 1952 for the first time in over 200 years, means that the Stannary Parliament, whilst not in session, still exists. The 1508 Charter of Pardon is still on the statute books, as was confirmed in the House of Commons in recent years. involves a legal interpretation without any reference given. If no reference is given I will delete the sentence. Perhaps the sentence can be re-written. I guess this is the legal interpretation that the interest group "Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament" think is correct. Best regards Pierreback 18:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Suppression of Cornish identity

Added the following:- "The CSP are campaigning against the lack of a written constitutional text to protect British 'subjects' from abuse of power by the state and have highlighted the absence of a British constitutional/statutory guarantee of the principle of equality before the law (cf Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution). They have raised concerns with the British government regarding the failure by the state to include Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights in its Human Rights Act 1998, the failure by the state to ratify Protocol 12 of the ECHR, the failure by the state to incorporate the European Directive 2000/43/EC on Anti-discrimination into domestic legislation by introducing what the CSP claim is the inadequate Statutory Instrument 1626. They have also raised concerns regarding the retention of an unelected head of state and associated upper chamber of parliament (House of Lords), and the retention of what the CSP claim is an archaic and undemocratic Privy Council of the United Kingdom.---see - Suppression of Cornish identity

The CSP claim that Cornish people are subject to forced assimilation by an education system that fails to provide them with an adequate level of knowledge about their history and, hence, their identity. They also claim that there are persistent attempts by state authorities to deny Cornish people their identity for example in the national census, pupil level annual school census, exclusion from the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, and denial of adequate financial cultural/linguistic resources." Jeaniel (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well they are wrong on schools. A new pupil recording software called "Target Tracker" has been introduced in Cornwall. It gives the pupil the right to be recorded as "White Cornish" or "Black Cornish". Once I can find some evidence, of the right sort, I will linkSerpren (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

 09:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

POV presentation of claims

The article presents, without comments, various legal claims by the CSP which are, to say the least, controversial. For example:

- that the UK has no written constitution (most scholars would disagree, as indeed does the relevant Wikipedia article)

- there is no British constitutional/statutory guarantee of equality before the law (most authorities would say that the common law provided such a guarantee; the Human Rights Act certainly does)

- that Article 13 of the ECHR (requiring States to provide a remedy for breaches of the ECHR) is not included in the HRA (this is surely a mistake/misunderstanding - the HRA itself *is* a "remedy" for the purposes of article 13)

- the implication that the Privy Council has a significant role in governance (again, this is contradicted by the relevant Wikipedia article)

- the idea that the Monarchy contravenes the ECHR (a proposition which is, to say the least, innovative)

- the idea that the Council of Europe is bound by the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination

- the article presents (in the "Status" section) various claims from the CSP that it has legal validity, and then a quote to the contrary from the Government. The mainstream constitutional view also needs to be presented - that the doctrine of implied repeal means that any legislation passed by Parliament which is contrary to historic laws/treaties overrides those laws/treaties. This means that, whilst (eg) the Charter of Pardon (together with many old pieces of legislation) was never formally repealed, it does not need to be.

I am not saying that each of the above claims is definitively incorrect, only that each is contrary to the consensus view of constitutional scholars and lawyers. To present each without criticism cannot be right.

In additional, all the political claims of the CSP also seem to be presented in an entirely uncritical manner. There is little context, no indication of the extent to which the organisation is representative, multiple references to the organisation's own website, and (other than the quote from the Government referred to above) not a single critical voice is referenced. I have no expertise in these issues, so can only be of limited assistance here.

LeContexte (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The UK does not have a proper constitution, only layers of legal documents.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The British constitution is certainly uncodified, but whether it is "proper" or not is a matter of opinion. The claim (as in this article) that it is "unwritten" is often made, but most authorities would disagree. That said, this is probably the least significant of the dubious legal claims in this article. LeContexte (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well please read this then - "Why doesn't the UK have a written constitution, and does it matter?" from the The Independent Feb 2008 - It points out that Britain's arcane hotch-potch of freedoms and rights cannot be defended in the 21st century and a written constitution could help citizens clarify their rights and protect themselves against the state. Most flourishing democracies base their institutions on a written constitution !! Why doesn't the UK have a written constitution, and does it matter? The Independent Feb 2008and DoCHRAXaquelina (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The author is proposing a codified constitution - he uses the term "written constitution" but, as I said above, most constitutional authorities (i.e. not journalists!) would not use that term in this way. See Constitution of the United Kingdom. LeContexte (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thee word "claims" is itself pov language and is not recommended to be used. See wp:claim Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"revived Cornish Stannary Parliament"

Im slightly concerned about the title and intro among other things. This article is not talking about a revived Cornish Stannary Parliament.. its talking about something established by a group of people, there is no "revived" about it. There was not a Scottish parliament for 300 years, a campaign group could not just come along and "revive" it. I find it rather misleading especially as the first mention about a "pressure group claiming" to of "Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament" is in the history section, that obviously belongs in the introduction and in the first sentence to avoid confusion. Im re adding the tag. Clear bias BritishWatcher (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The name of the group, organisation, or however you want to describe it, is "The Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament". Therefore, the title is accurate. --Joowwww (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldnt even tell that from the introduction.. If "The Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament" is the name of the group why does the intro start by saying... "The Cornish Stannary Parliament"... BritishWatcher (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right, and this is one of many problems with an article that presents an extremely fringe viewpoint with minimal context (and indeed few indications to the reader that the viewpoint is on the political fringe). LeContexte (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Two MPs have worked with this group in investigating Cornwall's constitutional status. Hardly "extreme fringe" is it, unless you consider those two MPs to be "extreme fringe". --Joowwww (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who has worked with them, or what they worked on, but the point remains: this is a fringe group making fringe claims, and attracting a very low level of popular support - the article fails to reflect this. LeContexte (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added "Revived", as appropriate, through the article, to stop this group being confused with the legitimate Cornish Stannary Parliament.Serpren (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)