Bucca boo said:
T2 reloaded, to deny that Cornwall has been governed by England is equally ignoring historical fact.
I do not think that anyone is denying that Cornwall has been governed by England for a very long time. What people are saying is that there are constitutional issues that need to be properly investigated. Issues that have a real impact on Cornwall today, whether you wish to see it or not. It's all part of "recognition".
Bucca boo said:
Zennorman, self sufficiency in power generation would undoubtedly change the dynamic. But if you look at the wave hub project, where 20 mill will be spent to power 7000 homes , we see how far off this is.
I'd welcome a wider debate throughout Cornwall on weather the residents of Cornwall want to devolve or be regionalised or what level of spending should be controlled locally. Sadly most people are more interested in last night's Chelsea game or what's happening on 'Corrie'.
I too would welcome such a debate, but I would wish such a debate to start on a level field. There are many issues involved here, besides politics and the economy. There is the ethnic question which would be needed to be sorted out first, agreement reached, recognition achieved. (By raising ethnicity, I am not proposing exclusivity, but arguing against forced assimilation.) Before such debate could be said to be worthwhile and productive, all parties need to know what they are working with, what, and who, they are debating for.
Bucca boo said:
Posters who deny the importance of tourism are showing the lack of commercial aptitude i keep mentioning.{with respect}
Again, I do not believe that anyone denies the "importance" of tourism, just that that "importance", the over reliance, on just one "industry" is a dangerous route to take, both commercially, and culturally, and that such "importance" should be reduced.
Bucca boo said:
It may fit neatly with the separtists arguments ,ie that england wants us for a playground, but the reality is that we the Cornish have been complicit on the focus on this industry/trade. My own family suffered badly at the collapse of the mining industry {back in early 1900's} Thier already humble situation was beggered to the point where the adult males travelled to USA sending money home. That is the backdrop to which the tourist industry was born. The newly installed railway brought tourisits and we were bloody glad to see them.
But I digress.
For the Cornish movement to be moved forward there needs to be a higher level of responsibility taken for our own role in the present situation. Blaming upcountry developers/whitehall for everything conveys the lack of mature responsibility needed to make Cornwall gov credible.
The use of words like "separatists" displays a lack of understanding of the subject, and indicates the opinion of the writer.
I am sure that most of us could repeat similar stories, members of my own family went to South Africa at the same time, but I have no recollection of any of them having to rely on tourism to get by. We are all aware of the situation as it exists now, and we can all propose theories as to how and why that situation exists. The question that needs asking, is do we, the people who live here and are effected the most by it, wish that situation to continue. Te "That's the way it is" style of argument is, in my opinion, a rather self centered "I'm all right jack" one, and extremely short sighted.
Bucca boo said:
Hard as i try I'm not convinced by devolution{yet} . Looking at Scotland – they have given themselves free further education and perscriptions but they have'nt raised taxes themselves to pay for it, . We , the rest of UK are paying for SNP re-election jollies. That situation should never exsist in the first place and once the Jocks are made to pay i wonder how popular independence will seem. Yey already SNP are pushing for further devolvement.
I can't make out any change to Wales over and above what would have happened before devolvement.
As I understand it, the Scottish parliament does not have the power to raise taxes, and are only "spending" the budget that has been granted to them. If they are managing their budget differently to the way it is managed to the south of them, and their electorate agree with their management of their budget, then I would have said that that was an argument in favour of devolution. If, however, you are suggesting that they have been granted an unfairly large budget in the first place, then that is not an argument against devolution, but an indication that those who made such decisions are incompetent, and that the Scottish are better of without them.