Campaign against a Devonwall Cross Border Constituency - update and news

News From Kernow Matters To Us:

The campaign against the unlawful imposition of a cross-border Westminster parliamentary constituency on Cornwall continues.

Please may we invite you to write to your elected representatives expressing your opposition to this outrage.

This is easily done via this website: https://www.writetothem.com/

The email address for the Minister for the Constitutitution is: Chris Skidmore MP, Minister for the Constitution, Cabinet Office, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2AS and / or chris.skidmore.mp@parliament.uk

You can write to the Prime Minister even if you don't reside in Britain: Theresa May MP, Prime Minister, 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA and / or via https://email.number10.gov.uk

You can write to the Constitution Group within the Cabinet Office: publiccorrespondence@cabinetoffice.gov.ukFor our part, and following scores of complaints regarding a Sam Hartley, Secretary to the Boundary Commission whose arrogant announcement angered so many people, we are advising complainants to write to their MPs whilst we collate the matters raised as best we can and flag them to the appropriate authorities.

An analysis of the Boundary Commissions statement and calculations by Professor (of Applied Physics) Gareth Parry, Cornish speaker

“If considered alone, the electorate of the County of Cornwall (including the electorate of the Isles of Scilly), at nearly 394,000, would result in an allocation of 5.27 constituencies to the county. 

While we are sensitive to the strength of feeling about the Cornish border, with its single land border, it is simply not possible to develop a proposal under which five whole constituencies, each with electorates within 5% of the electoral quota, are contained within the county boundary.” (Boundary Commission)

Whilst mathematically correct, the analysis below demonstrates that this is far from the clear cut case suggested. In fact the Commission case is based on the tiniest of margins. It would be scandalous if Cornwall was broken up on the basis such small margins.

The 5% rule implies that the electorate in the constituencies should be between 71,031 and 78, 507.

The electorate of Cornwall is 392,223 and that of the Isle of Scilly is 1,651. A total of 393,874.

The Commission’s figure of 5.27 is based on the assumption that there are 74,739 electors in each constituency. However, we are permitted under the rules specified to have up to 78,507 electors in each constituency. If that were the case the allocation would be 5.02, which is very close to the target of 5.0 constituencies.

So suppose we do have 5 constituencies of 78,507 electors.

The total number of electors permitted would be 392,535. The actual number of electors is 393,535 which is only 1,339 more or 269 more per constituency or 0.3% above the target number.

If this extremely small additional number were permitted, Cornwall would remain whole with 5 constituencies. Or, to put it another way, the boundary commission are imposing Devonwall on the basis of just 269 electors in a constituency of 78,507!

We can look at this another way. Consider Cornwall on its own (without the Isles of Scilly). The electorate is 392,223. This is less than the 392,535 which the Commission state is within acceptable limits. And 5 constituencies would have 78,445 electors, 62 less than the maximum allowed under the Commission rules. Cornwall alone with 5 constituencies satisfies the Commission’s rules.

The fact that the tiny population of the Isles of Scilly is sufficient for the Commission to argue that the historic Cornwall-Devon boundary be moved highlights the weakness of the Commission’s case. It would be perfectly reasonable to make the case that one Cornish constituency should be permitted to exceed the maximum to include the Isle of Scilly. All 4 other constituencies would be less than the maximum permitted.

Prof. Gareth Parry

20th September 2016

Devonwall Public Protest - Sunday 30th October, 2016 at 11 AM - 4 PM Polson Bridge, Launceston, Kernow

Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/events/878400598958162/

As you may be aware, a public protest and rally is to occur in Launceston as above. 

This is being arranged by two female Bards of Gorsedh Kernow. 

Councillors in the affected areas are expected and opponents from Devon have been warmly invited to attend. Yes, more and more elected representatives are announcing their opposition!

For our part, 'Kernow Matters' are arranging for a bus to assist in transporting the enormous numbers wishing to attend to get to this historic entrance into Cornwall. 

Please bring your lunch and Piran Flags.

Letter from Craig Weatherhill sent to Jonathan Crow Esq Duchy of Cornwall Attorney-General

20th September 2016

Dear Sir,

Re: Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011: the proposed Bideford, Bude and Launceston constituency.

As you will know, implementation of the aforementioned Act was delayed until 2016 when it emerged that this cross-border constituency will be created.  I am entirely sure that HM Government and the Boundaries Commission do not realise the implications of this proposal, which the Leader of Cornwall Council, Cllr John Pollard, has already publicly condemned as “unlawful”.  The inhabitants of both Cornish and Devonian halves of the proposed constituency have also greeted the proposal with considerable dismay, to say the least.

I am certain that you will know that part of the role of High Sheriff is to act as Returning Officer for parliamentary constituencies outside urban areas (although he normally delegates this to an Acting Returning Officer, usually a senior Council official)  However, in this proposed constituency, two High Sheriffs are involved.  Devonshire’s is appointed by the Crown, while Cornwall’s is, uniquely, appointed by the Duchy of Cornwall.  Which of them will “get the nod” from HM Government to be the Returning Officer?

If Devonshire’s is chosen, then surely that must imply that part of Crown jurisdiction and authority will intrude into those of the Duchy and, indeed, vice-versa, creating the potential for another Duchy v Crown legal dispute.  I am certain that neither Authority will relish such a prospect and, therefore, I would respectfully suggest that the matter be brought before the relevant agencies of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall in order to find a solution that will avoid any possibility of complicated legal wrangling.

The simplest of all solutions would be for HM Government and the Boundaries Commission to reconsider the proposed constituency and ensure that the 1,100-year old border, at high-water mark on the left, or east, bank of the River Tamar, remain strictly observed by any parliamentary constituency reorganisation as it is at present.  HM Government would merely require an amendment to the Act to treat the Tamar border as a ‘special case for protection.  Indeed, it has applied ‘special case’ provisions elsewhere in the United Kingdom under this Act, and can easily do so here.

Unlike most county boundaries, that between Cornwall and Devon is significant in that it also demarcates territories in which differing laws apply: for example laws relating to the Duchy of Cornwall and the Stannaries apply in Cornwall but not in Devon.  It also fixes the limit of a territory (Cornwall) in which official protections have been granted for a national minority ethnicity, and for a minority language.

For HM Government to expect a single Member of Parliament to adequately represent a constituency in which such fundamental and legal differences exist, let alone be fully conversant with them, is surely too much to ask of any person.

I hope that you will find the time to fully consider the implications of this proposal with regard to the integrity of Duchy of Cornwall jurisdiction, and may I thank you in anticipation of it.

 Yours faithfully,

Craig Weatherhill (Mr)

The writer of this letter is a Cornish historian, author, and Bard of the Cornish Gorsedh, and currently a Board Member of the Penwith Landscape Partnership.

Further letter from Cornwall Councillor Dick Cole sent to the Minister for the Constitution, Chris Skidmore

22nd September, 2016

The Parliamentary Boundary Review; Cornwall and the implications of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities 

Thank you for your response, dated 15th September, to my letter, dated 18 August, about the present review into parliamentary boundaries and the proposed creation of a cross-Tamar "Devonwall" seat. You will recall that (i) I requested central government amend the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act (The Act) in order ensure that all Cornish constituencies would lie entirely within the boundaries of Cornwall (and the Isles of Scilly), and (ii) brought your attention to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, through which the Cornish have been recognised since April 2014.

I have to say that I was very disappointed with the nature of the reply and your assertion that “the Government does not believe it should now seek to change the rules that the Boundary Commissions must apply when proposing new constituency boundaries.”

I would request that you look again at the issues raised in my original letter and, in addition, I would ask that you also consider the following:

Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

I note that in your response to my original letter, you stated that “this matter was debated at length by Parliament in its consideration of the legislation.” But there has been a significant shift since the Act was agreed in 2011. 

This was, of course, the landmark decision of central government to recognise the Cornish people through the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, when the official governmental press release stated that “the decision to recognise the unique identity of the Cornish, now affords them the same status … as the UK’s other Celtic people, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish.”

As well as protecting the culture and identity of national minorities, the Framework Convention also seeks to protect the political integrity of territories associated with such groups. 

It remains our view, therefore, that the legislation which guides the Boundary Review is in conflict with the spirit and intent of the Framework Convention, and the Act should be revisited in order to address that conflict.

In the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, the territories of other national minorities within the United Kingdom (namely the Scots, the Welsh and Northern Irish) are safeguarded and no seats can be proposed which would cross the land borders between England and Scotland or England and Wales. It is therefore illogical that Cornwall – the territory of the fourth national minority – is not treated in the same manner. 

It concerns us that, having recognised that the Cornish through the Framework Convention, the UK Government is failing to meet its obligations with regard to the various articles in the document. Indeed, the likely imposition of a Devonwall seat is a stark manifestation of this neglect 

Please take the time to review the significance of the Framework Convention, how it should impact on government policy and, in particular, how it relates to the Boundary Review. We are confident that you will come to the conclusion that the Act needs to be amended to safeguard the territorial integrity of Cornwall, and we would formally request that you promote this course of action.

Fair and equal representation

In your reply to my original letter, you stated that the Government was “committed to fair and equal representation" and wanted to "make sure that everyone's vote carries more equal value." 

But with respect, the decision to except four constituencies from the ruling that "all constituencies are to be within 95 per cent to 105% of a single United Kingdom electoral quota" (71,031 and 78,507 electors) does somewhat undermine the central tenet of this argument and the original legislation. 

From our perspective, we do not understand how central government can allow the Isle of Wight to have two seats with 52,180 and 52,268 voters respectively but, at the same time, choose not to protect the historic nation of Cornwall.

We would consider it fair and equitable for Cornwall to be treated in the same manner as Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, befitting of the Framework Convention.

It is also the case that we are not arguing that Cornwall should be over-represented in the Westminster Parliament – only that our political representatives should serve whole Cornish constituencies. The Boundary Commission has confirmed Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly would be entitled to approximately 5.27 MPs based on an electorate of “just under 394,000” (as recorded in December 2015). 

The reality is that the statistics show Cornwall’s electorate was 392,223, while that of the Isles of Scilly is 1,651, making a total of 393,874. If Cornwall had five seats, the average electorate would be about 78,775. This is ridiculously close to the top end of the Government's own range of between 71,031 and 78,507 electors.

We cannot fathom why central government – for the sake of such a slight numerical difference – would seek to breach Cornwall's thousand-year-old border, erase Cornwall from the political map, and go against its own commitment to the Framework Convention. 

Please think again and act to keep Cornwall Whole.

The Boundary Commission

We are also disappointed that, in your letter, you stated: “The Boundary Commission for England has published its initial proposals for the new parliamentary constituencies and there is now a public consultation on them, which will provide an opportunity for representations to be submitted on the proposed boundaries."

The recommendations include a Devonwall seat, but in correspondence with Cornwall Council the Boundary Commission has made it clear that, while they sympathise with the concerns of the residents of Cornwall, they are bound by the Act and cannot propose Cornwall-only seats. 

In particular, they told the unitary authority that: “The decision on the rules under which the BCE operates is for the legislature to make … We have no power, nor discretion, to act otherwise. The Commission is not an advocate or critic of the rules Parliament has set, nor a lobbying body that will take a view on those rules as they exist now. You will understand that the Commission has been tasked with a statutory role and it will complete that within the rules Parliament has set."

The reality is that you, as the Minister, have the power to intervene to prevent the creation of a Devonwall seat by modifying the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act. Please do what is right for Cornwall.

“We are stronger when we recognise our different regional and cultural differences and celebrate them”

When the announcement was made in 2014 that the Cornish were to be protected by the Framework Convention, David Cameron stated that the United Kingdom was "stronger" when its different regional identities were recognised.

The former Prime Minister told the media that: “There is a distinctive, history, culture and language in Cornwall which we should celebrate and make sure is properly looked after and protected. It is a very special part of our country and I think we are stronger when we recognise our different regional and cultural differences and celebrate them."

It is our hope that you will look to live up to the fine words of David Cameron and deliver a simple amendment to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, in order to respect the Framework Convention and Keep Cornwall Whole. 

We look forward to hearing from you and would welcome the opportunity to make further representations if that would be helpful.

Boundary Commission Hearings Council Chambers, New County Hall, Treyew Road TR1 3AY Truro

Day 1 - 10am to 8pm Thursday 10 November, 2016
Day 2 - 9am to 5pm Friday 11 November, 2016

Website here: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/bce-public-hearing-at-truro-10-november-2016-day-1-10am-8pm-tickets-26989007849

Many members of 'Kernow Matters' have booked to speak at this 'hearing' before yet another quango from England, this time the unelected and undemocratic Boundary Commission. 

This is a public hearing and as such we believe that even though all the speaking 'slots' have now apparently been reserved, there is nothing stopping members of the public attending. We are well used now in dealing with these attacks on Cornwall by these strange quangos from England - 'Natural England' 'English Heritage' 'Historic England' the 'Planning Inspectorate' and so on. We have evidence that the Boundary Commission is refusing to communicate with one of our members. We will be looking into that in due course. They are running out of control and will be told as much!

Letter from Professor Jonathan Rosenhead - Emeritus Professor of Operational Research, London School of Economics

"Geoffrey Renshaw in his letter to the Guardian published on 15th September 2016, wonders why we don’t adopt the “21st-century approach” of using a computer to settle the boundaries of our constituencies. He may not know that there has been work on computer redistricting since at least the 1960s, so it is not so 21st-century. One reason why it has not been widely adopted in practice is that it doesn’t actually make the problem go away.

The desirable aspects of a set of constituencies are near population equality, compactness (not long and thin, or bendy) and contiguity (you can get between any two points of a constituency without leaving it). These attributes are in principle computable, and remove some of the obvious ways in which constituencies could be gerrymandered.

But other factors are also important. There can be little sense of a shared community between constituents separated by mountains or wide rivers, or living in different boroughs or counties, so how can they sensibly share the same representative? Leaving existing boundaries unchanged where possible is also desirable (to avoid wholesale identity shifts at every review). The problem of complexity is intractable – an influential paper in 2010 found that it is “probably impossible to create a computer program that solves these problems optimally and reliably except in very small or limited cases”.

The notorious “Devonwall” constituency is an example of the sort of undesirable outcome that can result when apparently reasonable rules are applied without wisdom. It actually results from a quite foolish tightening of the population inequality tolerance to 5% in the legislation enacted in 2011. A House of Commons briefing paper found that far less disruption would be caused by an 8% tolerance about the average, but was ignored.

One is almost tempted to think that the coalition government wanted to cause as much disruption as possible.

Professor Jonathan Rosenhead

Emeritus Professor of Operational Research, London School of Economics"

Gorsedh Kernow

Dr. Merv Davey, Grand Bard of Gorsedh Kernow has caused the following information to be published:

http://gorsedhkernow.org.uk/wp/?p=472

http://gorsedhkernow.org.uk/wp/?p=475

The Grand Bard has also issued a 'tool kit', a copy of which is attached.

Other Actions

As the Leader of Cornwall Council, Councillor John Pollard has declared the Boundary Commission proposals 'inequitable and unlawful', KM has written to the Council of Europe, UNPO and FUEN flagging the unlawful proposals and reporting the Boundary Commission. We have written to the Duke of Cornwall as well as to Church leaders.

(Cornwall Council news release here: http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/council-news-room/media-releases/news-from-2016/news-from-september-2016/cornwall-council-leader-criticises-inequitable-and-unlawful-proposal-for-cross-border-constituency/)

Also attached is a copy of Craig Weatherhill's paper, 'The Case for Cornwall' which has been widely circulated to the Leaders of all Political parties with a presence in the House of Commons as well as to selected members of the House of Lords.

Gorsedh Kernow says “Gwithewgh Kernow Kowal! – Keep Kernow Whole!”

The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 stated that the number of seats in the UK parliament should be reduced from 650 to 600.

The Boundary Commission has therefore recommended a cross border “Devonwall” constituency to be put into place for the next general election in 2020. This political vandalism threatens to destroy the territorial integrity of Cornwall and a border that has been in place for a thousand years. It is a denial of Cornwall’s distinctive history and cultural identity and blatantly ignores the U.K. Government’s recognition of the Cornish under the 2014 Framework Convention for National Minorities.  

The Boundary Commission’s hands are tied by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. This specifies a maximum/minimum electorate for each constituency. Cornwall’s electorate is too small for 6 MPs and fractionally too large for 5. The legislation does allow for special cases (Orkney & Shetland, the Western Isles, and two seats for the Isle of Wight),  to be made but Cornwall is not deemed to be a special case or even a national entity by the legislation. This is a Government decision and not one the Boundary Commission can make.

The electorate of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly means we would be entitled to about 5.3 MPs and it is therefore a statistical impossibility for the Boundary Commission to propose five seats for Cornwall and Isles of Scilly.

That is why we need to build a massive campaign to put pressure on central government and Members of Parliament to modify the existing legislation to ensure that Cornish constituencies remain whole and lie entirely within the boundaries of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. 

The threat to Cornwall’s integrity and identity cannot be understated. We urge everyone who cares for Cornwall, both Cornish born and Cornish of heart to write, in their own words, to Chris Skidmore MP, Cabinet Minister responsible for the Act, asking for an amendment to the legislation allowing Cornwall to be recognised as a special case. They should also write to their own local MP and to the Boundary Commission requesting that that Cornwall’s integrity is respected by the Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries.

Write a letter or send an email to the Government:

Chris Skidmore MP, Minister for the Constitution, Cabinet Office, Whitehall, London,  SW1A 2AS   

or email  chris.skidmore.mp@parliament.uk

Write a letter or send an email to your MP:

(name of your MP), House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

Or it is simple to contact your MP online:  www.writetothem.com  enter your postcode and complete the message box.

Cornish MPs: george.eustice.mp@parliament.uk

sarah.newton.mp@parliament.uk

sheryll.murray.mp@parliament.uk

derek.thomas.mp@parliament.uk

steve.double.mp@parliament.uk

scott.mann.mp@parliament.uk

Write a letter to the Boundary Commission

Boundary Commission for England, 35 Great Smith Street, London, SW1P 3BQ.

You can also contact the Boundary Commission through their website: www.bce2018.org.uk

NB You cannot cut and paste into “www.writetothem.com” or “ www.bce2018.org.uk” you need to re-type in your own words.  

Summary of Cornwall’s Case

1. Cornwall has devolved Local Government through the Devolution Deal, recently agreed with HM Government and our democracy will be seriously inhibited if this does not coincide with Parliamentary Constituency boundaries.

2. The Cornish are recognised as a National Minority under the European Framework Convention. This was endorsed by the UK Government in 2014. The Government’s announcement made clear the similarity between Cornwall, Wales and Scotland in terms of National Minority status. Neither Wales nor Scotland have cross border constituencies and Cornwall’s border should be similarly respected.

 

3. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was in place before the UK Government agreed that the Cornish be recognised by the Framework Convention for National Minorities in 2014.  The FCNM therefore must take precedence.

4. Cornwall has a distinct history and cultural identity and an officially recognised Celtic language that sets it alongside Wales and Scotland.

5. The border was set between Cornwall and Devon/England in the 10th Century and was reinforced by successive monarchs from the Norman Conquest through to modern times.

 

6. The Duchy of Cornwall is unique within the UK and affords special constitutional status to Cornwall that sets it apart from England.

7. The determination of the current UK Government to create this cross-border “Devonwall” constituency is in defiance of legally binding Charters and Framework Conventions, ancient and modern, British and European.

8. The proposed Devonwall includes Bude, Stratton, Poundstock, Tintagel, Camelford, St Teath, Altarnun and Launceston with Bideford, Broadheath and Holsworthy to form “Bideford, Bude and Launceston CC”.  The link to the map of this proposed constituency is

http://assets.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/proposals/171%20Cornwall/Bideford,%20Bude%20and%20Launceston%20CC.pdf

For fuller information about the Review please see http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/2018-review/ip-en...

9. Here is the link to Gorsedh Kernow’s press release “Keep Kernow Whole” issued 4th September 2016    http://gorsedhkernow.org.uk/wp/?p=450

10. Here is the link to the Grand Bard’s full speech “Gwithyewgh Kernow Kowal!/Keep Kernow Whole!” in Kernewek and English as you may wish to use some Kernewek in your letter  http://gorsedhkernow.org.uk/wp/?p=468

11. Here is the link on the GK website to the Grand Bard’s open letter to Chris Skidmore MP, Minister for the Constitution  http://gorsedhkernow.org.uk/wp/?p=475

12. An analysis of the Boundary Commission statement and calculations by Gareth Parry

“If considered alone, the electorate of the County of Cornwall (including the electorate of the Isles of Scilly), at nearly 394,000, would result in an allocation of 5.27 constituencies to the county. While we are sensitive to the strength of feeling about the Cornish border, with its single land border, it is simply not possible to develop a proposal under which five whole constituencies, each with electorates within 5% of the electoral quota, are contained within the county boundary.”

Whilst mathematically correct, the analysis below demonstrates that this is far from the clear cut case suggested.  In fact the Commission case is based on the tiniest of margins.   It would be scandalous if Cornwall was broken up on the basis such small margins.

The 5% rule implies that the electorate in the constituencies should be between 71,031 and 78, 507.

The electorate of Cornwall is 392,223 and that of the Isle of Scilly is 1,651.   A total of 393,874.

The Commission’s figure of 5.27 is based on the assumption that there are 74,739 electors in each constituency.   However, we are permitted under the rules specified to have up to 78,507 electors in each constituency.   If that were the case the allocation would be 5.02, which is very close to the target of 5.0 constituencies.

So suppose we do have 5 constituencies of 78,507 electors. The total number of electors permitted would be 392,535.   The actual number of electors is 393,535 which is only 1,339 more or 269 more per constituency or 0.3% above the target number.

If this extremely small additional number were permitted, Cornwall would remain whole with 5 constituencies.  Or, to put it another way, the boundary commission are imposing Devonwall on the basis of just 269 electors in a constituency of 78,507!

We can look at this another way.  Consider Cornwall on its own (without the Isles of Scilly).  The electorate is 392,223.   This is less than the 392,535 which the Commission state is within acceptable limits.  And 5 constituencies would have 78,445 electors, 62 less than the maximum allowed under the Commission rules. Cornwall alone with 5 constituencies satisfies the Commission’s rules.

The fact that the tiny population of the Isles of Scilly is sufficient for the Commission to argue that the historic Cornwall-Devon boundary be moved highlights the weakness of the Commission’s case. It would be perfectly reasonable to make the case that one Cornish constituency should be permitted to exceed the maximum to include the Isle of Scilly.  All 4 other constituencies would be less than the maximum permitted.

13. Historical notes by Craig Weatherhill

The border at the left (eastern) bank of the River Tamar has been in place since c.930 AD, fixed by treaty between Athelstan, king of a newly created England, and Huwal, king of an already ancient Cornwall. That this arrangement was taken seriously thereafter, and at the very highest level, is confirmed by Cornish exemption from English legislature from the reign of Cnut to that of Henry I (1016 to 1135).

The border at the River Tamar is apparent in the construction of the Earldom of Cornwall and subsequently written into the Duchy of Cornwall Charters of 1337-8. In these the same border position at the east bank of the Tamar was not only maintained but enshrined in law for perpetuity. The Tamar Bridge Act 1998 confirms that the border remains legally observed, and intact at law, to this day.

“The whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entirety of Cornwall is vested in the Duke of Cornwall”- confirmed by the High Court in 1855 and again in 2013. Therefore, the current ruler and quasi-sovereign of Cornwall is not Queen Elizabeth II, but Charles, Duke of Cornwall and Prince of Wales. Cornwall is thus the only part of the entire United Kingdom whose de jure Head of State is not the Monarch. The proposed cross-border constituency would consist of two halves, each having separate Heads of State. Each half would also have separate High Sheriffs, the Devonian one appointed by the Monarch, and the Cornish one appointed by the Duke of Cornwall.

Peculiar and unique laws, established over centuries and mostly referring to the Duchy and the Stannaries are applicable and fully extant in the Cornish half, but not in the Devonian part of the proposed constituency. Those include ‘bona vacantia’, right of wreck, ownership of the foreshore and waterways and many more besides. Moreover, the ‘owner absolute’ of the soil in the Cornish half is the Duke of Cornwall but, in the Devonian half (and the remainder of the UK), the absolute ownership of the soil is vested in the Crown. Cornwall’s constitutional status is, in learned legal opinions, “unique” and “in a category of its own.”

The Cornish half of the proposed constituency is territory inhabited by a legally protected national minority people: the Cornish. The Devonian half is not. The Cornish half is also territory housing a legally protected minority language: Cornish. The Devonian half is not.  No future Member of Parliament can possibly be expected to deal with this efficiently and correctly, let alone understand it to the sufficiency of knowledge that the subject demands.

The High Sheriff is the Returning Officer (RO) for "county" parliamentary elections, but that role is usually delegated by him to an Acting Returning Officer (ARO). But in the cross-border constituency, we have two High Sheriffs, one appointed by the Crown; the other appointed by the Duchy.  Which RO and ARO will get priority?

If it's Devon's, then part of the Duchy of Cornwall gets swallowed into the jurisdiction of the Crown.  If Cornwall's gets the priority, then Crown jurisdiction will be effectively transferred to the Duchy. Neither can be covered simply by an Act of Parliament, and will involve far deeper legalities because either scenario breaches the Duchy of Cornwall Charters.

 Neither Crown nor Duchy is likely to accept either and is likely to lead to a protracted legal wrangling between the two jurisdictions. The most famous occasion in which that happened was a row over ownership of Cornwall's foreshore, which took 4 years to sort out (and the Duchy won).

*******************

Gorsedh Kernow  13.9.16, updated 14.9.16, updated 20.9.16.