This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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 link Serpren ( talk) 09:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
09:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)