I'd suggest the following minor tweeks to paragraph 2.

the fundamental building blocks of our democracy shall be the historic counties (or other local units as may be defined), which shall be sovereign bodies exercising under the control of their peoples all powers of legislation, taxation and administration not specifically granted by the people to national governments;

It seems to be an excellent start, concise and easily understood. Too many would have complicated things far too much. To get these agreed would be great, extras should wait until the success of this start.

Do you think that six really simple headings could be devised so that the demands can be clearly conveyed such as: An elected Prime Minister: Public permission for budgets: etc?

I wasn't sure about "historic". Things change, and the best bet - I thought - was to leave it up to the people to decide on their own boundaries. As for "sovereign" bodies, they can't be if the people are sovereign. Thus, I thought it more appropriate to call them constitutional bodies, to avoid confusion. Their powers, responsibilities, etc, are defined by constitution, approved by referendums, rather than the statutory bodies that they are now.

That may be a 'first draft' Richard, but I think all congratulations are due to you for succinctly summarizing what are, in fact, the main demands. Those 6 points are ones that I can endorse and support.

It is to be hoped that the majority of Harrogate attendees will concur.

Seems a little precise to me - how about we let people decide how they want to associate themselves into "counties"? If they want bigger groups or smaller, send multiple mps via AV or single ones based on FPTP then so be it; long as it doesn't contravene on the national powers granted to parliament then anything goes.

I think it is worthwhile including historic, because it may be the case that people who live in "modern" counties such as Cumbria may not feel much attachment to them but may be more excited by the idea of living in their old county of Cumberland or Westmorland again. Since 1974 local government in this country has been chopped and changed and renamed, and reconfigured numerous times. Announcing that we're going back to how things used to be differentiates us from the current crop of politicians and bureaucrats who have no sense of history and seem to revel in wrecking anything in this country that may have some history and thus the allegiance of peoples' affections. For those people who don't care about things, the inclusion of "historic" likely won't make any difference. In the end you're right that each county would be defined by the people living within it, but in the meantime it makes a nice selling point.

When I typed in the word sovereignty your object did occur to me. I just thought that constitutional sounded not quite right grammatically. What does constitutional mean - as opposed to unconstitutional. Perhaps "constitutionally defined" might be the more accurate term of what we're trying to arrive at.

I can't agree with your suggestion of condensing these demands into soundbites. I'd like to think that we are creating something historic here and it needs to look and read nicely. There is a place for soundbites - generally on a TV screen or coming over the speaker on the radio - not in document that we are putting our signatures to.

Done

It certainly is a good start, and with that layout, its not so hard to grasp the ideas. - I did have further questions on the referism thing, like splitting tax to provide funding for a certain thing ie road tax pays for roads only, NI for welfare, Income tax for essentials (police, fire, etc)
but item 5 covers nicely, no money and no spending without permission.

well I think i understand it, and I am no where near the sharpest knife in the drawer.