As I hope this blog to be on the key issues facing the nations of Britain (and specifically Wales), then this first topic is one of the most pressing and salient issues of the lot. That is the Scottish question, and specifically next years referendum.
I assume most readers of this blog will know the background (many will probably know far more than me), so I wont go into any of that. My view on this question though largely encompasses my views on some of the main themes of this blog: the future of Britain, identity, self determination, idealism vs. pragmatism.
I will start by saying that I believe Scotland has a right to leave the union if it wants to (as does Catalonia have the right to leave Spain in my opinion, I know that it may not be strictly constitutional), and that it is a matter for Scotland to decide on its own. I think the franchise that has been worked out is about as fair as it is going to get (essentially people living in Scotland, not ex-pat Scots). I have read the arguments that the rest of the UK should have a vote as it affects them, but I'm not convinced. It seems to me that the kind of people that make this argument would think it ridiculous if someone were to suggest that all member states of the EU should also vote if the UK were to have a vote on leaving. The borders of political units have changed over time and will continue to shift in the future. If leaders at the centre of the state cannot convince people in other parts of the state that it is worth staying in a union then it is their fault, not the fault of the people further away.This does not mean that it should be easy, and if a state has a written constitution they can decide to add certain locks into the system of secession. But they must allow for the democratic will of a clearly established nation for independence.
The second point I want to make is that I agree with the view, which most serious commentators have finally acknowledged, that Scotland could be a successful independent country should some wise decisions be made during the independence process and post independence early years. Scotland pays its way currently, having a GDP figure of roughly the UK average before oil and gas is taken into account. Currently under the Barnett formula they receive roughly 14% above the UK average of public spending per head, more than Wales which is 13% above the UK average (in Northern Ireland its 20% above). This is more than they raise from normal taxation, but it is also before oil and gas is taken into account which largely makes up for the overspend in Scotland compared to the other parts of the UK, even if it can fluctuate a bit. So even though it is hard to predict accurately, it looks like Scotland could pay its way and retain a public sector of a similar standard to the one it currently enjoys. This little info-graphic on the BBC website is quite nice and provides some more figures: Scotland in numbers.
This brings me on to Wales. There are two questions that this makes me ponder: what an independent Scotland means for Wales? And whether we in Wales could go for independence ourselves? Two big questions which probably need a much more thorough answer than the ones I am about to give. I will try and flesh it out a bit in future posts, but here is a start.
In one respect it doesn't mean that much to Wales. If Scotland chose to go for independence most people in Wales wouldn't notice a dramatic change to their lives apart from possible changes to things such as the flag and maybe the name of the country (also Westminster politics may move very slightly to the right as Scottish Labour MPs are removed from the equation, which is different to the Conservative party dominance some people claim). Scottish independence might even be an interesting experiment that we could learn something from. The one fear I may have once had I am far less worried about these days. That is the threat to the devolution project. I am convinced that the National Assembly is here to stay, and that it has put down strong roots, it cant be simply abolished if the powers that be in Westminster decided after a Yes vote in Scotland that this devolution thing was too dangerous. The Welsh people have accepted devolution. This has been convincingly argued in Richard Wyn Jones and Roger Scully's 2012 book "Wales Says Yes: Devolution and the 2011 referendum".
Following on from this point is an idea I will discuss in future posts, which is that we need to be more critical in Wales, particularly of the government. There was a fear in the early years of devolution, and especially as the Assembly was established as a corporate body, that to criticise it was to criticise devolution. Therefore commentators would find success stories amongst the failure and highlight them to show that the project was on course. I understand why this was the case, the early years of devolution following the narrow yes vote were nervous years. And some credit should be given to Labour (and Rhodri Morgan) for keeping the devolution/nation building project on track. Following the separation of government and legislature in 2006 and the second referendum in 2011 we can now be (and need to be) far more constructively critical.
Now back to the main point. I think there would be some negative and some positive implications for Wales whichever way the Scottish vote goes. Rhodri Morgan recently (and in his usual style) entered the debate and insulted three (possibly four) countries in the process by calling the celtic countries "fleas" on Englands "elephant". He described how the small fleas need to work together to get the elephants attention.
In typical style he forgot human nature (or should that be flea nature?), that fleas don't generally tend to work together and that even if they did it wouldn't make much difference to the elephant. Maybe a shoal of fish and a shark might be a better analogy? Anyway, enough animal analogies. The point is that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland only work together if it is in all their national interests and when they do does it really achieve that much if they are so small anyway? I'm not sure.
While I'm at it, Scotland is the biggest flea so they are more likely to get their way currently. Would Wales be taken more seriously as the biggest player in these negotiations post Scottish independence? The Barnett formula is one area where Scottish interests are more important to the UK then Welsh interests. I don't know if all this is really the case, but when you think about it Rhodri's argument is a bit thin. It at least seems a bit naive to suggest that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland's interests will always coincide and be different to England's, they may sometimes clash (as over the Barnett formula).
After saying that, in many ways it would seem a shame for Scotland to leave the union, reasons which are often cited: history and tradition; the social union; the difficulty and uncertainty of independence. All valid arguments, but not enough to counter the key arguments made in favour of Scottish independence: self determination and the prospect of building the type of country that most Scots would like to see (as well as a different view of history). It seems to me that it largely comes down to a personal choice that is not strictly rational, and is related to a persons sense of identity. But that does not mean that all the other arguments are unimportant, of course people need to know what they are getting themselves into by voting one way or the other.
So what should we in Wales do? It seems reasonable to me that we can involve ourselves in the debate, as it does affect us, while at the same time acknowledging that it is largely a matter for Scotland. Our government should also be planning for all potential outcomes to maximise the benefits of either result for Wales. Whether that is renegotiating a stronger position in what is left of the United Kingdom (the Rump-UK as it is somewhat mischievously called), including a new funding settlement which all parties have now acknowledged under-funds Wales, but won't change because of how it would play in Scotland. Or in the more likely (according to the polls) scenario in which Scotland votes no, we need to look at how the Coalition governments offer of more devolution for Scotland even if it votes no will relate to Wales. There may still be scope for Barnett reform in this scenario. Either way this is a pretty good opportunity for Wales to nudge its way into the debate if done with some skill.
It is sometimes noted that Wales has no decent cards up its sleeve to play in these sort of cases (and it might have some truth in it), but it sounds a bit defeatist to me. We need to learn from the Scots and either play the cards we have got better or get some new cards. It is not all about resources, which it is sometimes claimed Wales lacks, sometimes resources can hinder economic progress as this recent article about the rise of Eastern Europe discusses.
So what about Welsh independence? Is that where our priorities should be? On an emotional level I can see why this appeals, but for now I would have to say no. Wales is not Scotland and we are in a very different situation in a number of ways. The most important being the difference in the amount of wealth we generate through taxes that could pay for a similar level of public services compared to what we currently have. Unfortunately, better management of public services or new policies will not get us out of this hole, it is too deep. I have no problems putting some of the blame on the rule of Westminster, under this system we are peripheral to power and it makes sense (from a Westminster centric point of view) that not as much money has been put back into mountainous, sparsely populated and distant Wales. This was particularly tragic when in the past we contributed so much wealth to Britain and received less back in terms of infrastructure than was merited. But that was some time ago and some of the blame must also be put on the party which has dominated in Wales for almost a century (since 1922) and represents the poorest areas of the country. Indeed, I often wonder whether these areas vote Labour because they are poor, or whether its the other way around, that those areas are poor because they vote Labour?
But before we can figure out where we need to go, we need to recognise where we are, and the sad truth is that we could not afford independence at the current time, anyone who doubts this claim should read the Holtham commission report which highlights Wales' horrible fiscal deficit. That is unless you were to argue for an independent Wales from a radical small c conservative point of view in which radically cutting the state and public services was part of the project. But seeing as no-one is then it seems that this is a moot point for now.
Of course there is a strong case for some sort of British union, which I would advocate, based on our largely shared history and institutions, and the fact that we share an island and language. It could include sovereign/independent states voluntarily forming some sort of confederation (would it be too much to suggest that one day even a united Ireland could join this confederation?). But the game for nationalists and unionists in Wales at the moment should be (paradoxically) the same: to make Wales a more prosperous and self confident country under devolution. For one side it is so that Wales at least could afford to leave the union in the future if it were in the national interest, for the others it is to show that being part of Britain is worth the sacrifice of complete autonomy.
In any case (and as this post is becoming a bit on the long side), as is often stated independence for independence sake is not (or at least should not be) the point. I would be happy with a wealthy, fair, free, confident and respected Wales whether it was as part of Britain or as an independent state. Lets all, at least, agree on that!
*As it is Christmas tomorrow tomorrow can I wish anyone who has read this blog post a Nadolig Llawen/Merry Christmas!
No comments:
Post a Comment