United alone

The Union Flag, symbol of British unity, despite the absence of any Welsh presence upon it

ASSEMBLY Member David Melding’s new book, Will Britain survive beyond 2020? opens and closes with two brief moments of fantasy. In the prologue he draws a picture of Scotland anointing a different monarch to England after Wales has chosen republicanism, indicating a break-up of the United Kingdom. However, in the epilogue, the king returns to a United Kingdom that has come to terms with its multinational nature. Through these scenarios, Melding’s book never seeks to answer the question it poses in its title, but rather uses it as a heuristic device to look at the Welsh role in the British state.

His central argument is that the best future for both Wales and the United Kingdom is to establish a full Welsh Parliament in a federal UK, to prevent increasing tension between the home nations. He will have no problems with finding those that agree with him among members of other political traditions, and a Conservative perspective rather adds to the myriad evidence that supports federalism.

Melding’s analysis starts by focusing on the history of the Welsh identity and its political manifestation. Beginning by examining the idea of Welshness under Roman and Norman political control in England, he concludes that the ascension of the Tudors to the English crown did far less for this country than the printing of the Bible in Welsh.

This moves on to a demonstration of the slow process of devolution in the run up to 1979, using the history of institutional development in Wales to map out the defining effect it had on the development of the debate, using examples such as the early 20^th Century discussion on whether executive or legislative devolution would have been preferred.

Melding inevitably regards the evolution of the position of Secretary of State for Wales as an important development in establishing a unique public policy for Wales. It’s hard not to agree; one of the most important aspects in the establishment of a bespoke polity for Wales was the acceptance of a need for ministerial representation, for two reasons. Firstly, it established in the political classes a precedent that Welsh needs were different to those of the rest of the UK. Secondly, it provided a stronger theoretical basis for arguing for the democratisation of Welsh politics.

The book then analyses the rise of pro-devolution sentiment amongst three groups: the Welsh electorate between the two referenda, the Conservative party; and political thinkers across the UK. While providing a more narrowly-focused analysis than the previous chapters, this offers an insight into why the establishment of some form of devolved government for Wales have gradually been accepted as a result of social and economic changes, the reaction in Wales to Thatcherism and the joining of the European Community, which altered notions of sovereignty.

Across the book, there is a sense that the idea of devolution has won out. Melding’s analysis suggests that the move towards recognising a Welsh political entity is inevitable, rather like the Whig interpretation of history. In that sense, the book suggests that this progress has now reached a critical point. Melding effectively discounts a return to pre-devolution Wales and considers instead the two practical options left to Wales: federalism and independence.

The book’s final part comprises  a myth-busting guide to federalism and an attempt to tackle the independence argument. It also sets out Melding’s key point: that federalism is not only the best form of constitutional evolution for Wales, but that it will also prevent the break-up of the UK. Sweeping constitutional changes require some modicum of political consensus to ensure that they are successful, and building a consensus on the issue of federalism outside its traditional homes will do nothing to harm its cause.

The publication of the book has won plaudits for re-igniting the political debate about constitutional ideas and for seizing the initiative (for example, from Cynog Dafis). I am not so sure. Certainly the ideas may have re-ignited debate within the Conservative party, but many of these ideas have been around for a long time. In fact, Melding acknowledges the historical basis for federalism in his book. These ideas are not new but the development of the debate about the necessity of federalism is spreading into different ideological territory, and that is why this book is important.

There are, however, wider points to be made about Melding’s argument.The first relates to the historical development of an autonomous Welsh polity. The most important time for this came at the turn of the 20th Century – the Edwardian High Noon. Within a short period of time, Wales established a number of genuinely national institutions and parts of the political elite began to see Wales as a single entity.

However, as well as the development of Welsh governance, there was also the appearance of a burgeoning Welsh civil society and political culture, which were equally important in the move towards devolution. Perhaps the most important was the development of a specific Welsh bloc in Parliament. Examples include the rhetoric of Henry Richard, the “Member for Wales”, or the role of the Welsh Liberals during Gladstone’s ministries. The development of a Welsh press, the solidification of nonconformism and industrial change all contributed to a growing awareness of Welsh political identity among civil society, without which popular support for devolution would not have been possible.

While Melding’s book is not an analysis of changing social attitudes towards devolution or identity, the book does focus too often on elite ideas without necessarily investigating whether these ideas were absorbed by civil society. But it is crucial that these ideas are discussed today, as the lack of engagement with the National Assembly and Welsh politics is an issue that needs addressing, particularly the paucity of accessible mass media. In that sense, the book misses an important point.

There are, of course, problems with trying to co-ordinate civil society. Liberals prefer open access and increased engagement, rather than an authoritarian, unity-at-all-costs approach practised by some politicians. There is a history of opening up civil society in that way in Wales, especially through the proliferation of local newspapers before the Great Depression, and through the establishment of Wales-wide institutions.

Perhaps more importantly, Melding is rather quiet on what steps we could go about to achieve federalism. From a book that is, roughly, chronological up until 1999 and whose premise is based on divining what Wales and Britain may be like in 2020, this seems an odd lacuna. There is an obvious academic dilemma in prediction, but a few suggestions would have been instructive, such as an exploration of the effects of a speedy referendum on greater legislative powers, or Barnett Formula reform.

Those two steps would bring the benefits not only of allowing greater innovation in the National Assembly, as politicians are given the chance to provide a greater range of policy options, but also to move the debate on to policy and solutions rather than the constitutional debates that often dominate Welsh politics. It would allow us to discuss what the National Assembly can do, rather than what it can’t do. Both of these would engage the public more effectively and establish a move towards more Welsh-centric politics – a requirement for a move to federalism.

Equally as crucial, there would need to be a debate in England about devolution. Although Melding provides two options for federalism based on whether or not England has formal devolution or otherwise, there is no doubt that his preference is for a symmetric settlement.

Melding’s book bases its argument towards federalism on the twin pillars of historical precedent and prevention of independence. Both these are valid causes. Historical precedent is a legitimate argument for federalism. So is creating a bulwark against separatism. However, its most important purpose should be to improve the lives of the people of Wales. Devolution is a desirable institutional development because Wales has different issues to the rest of the UK, whether it is lower economic development, areas with entrenched poverty, or significant amounts of highly rural areas. All of these mean that the people of Wales are better served by a national level of government.

Therefore, federalism should be based upon ensuring that this democratic Welsh government is able to do the job. This means more freedom to legislate so that laws can develop more strategic policy approaches, particularly on sustainability and education issues. It means tax-varying powers so that we can use important economic levers to effect policy change, such as by lowering corporation tax in deprived areas to encourage investment. And it means control over a greater range of topics so that we are not left unable to influence policy in key areas. This includes devolution of powers over justice (as in Scotland) and broadcasting so we can be sure that in areas where there is a uniquely Welsh situation, we have a uniquely Welsh solution.

Finally, a useful addition to this discussion would be a debate about how we want Wales to look. Melding and I are likely to reach different conclusions on what we would use federalism to do. This is important, not only for drawing a distinction between the various elements across the political spectrum that support a particular constitutional theory, but for demonstrating that there is a deficiency in the current set-up. Those of us that work in the mile around Cardiff Bay know why the current LCO-and-Measure system isn’t working. But if we want to convince real people that there is an imperative for change, we need to establish the greater potential of a more advanced political structure.

There will be disagreement on this issue, but that underlines the potential for developing Wales as a country. If we genuinely support a more autonomous Welsh polity, then we need to work out what we would use it for. So Melding needs to explain what a Conservative Wales would look like in a federal structure, for example.

This book should be welcomed. If it means that we can begin to build consensus and attract new interest in Welsh politics, it will mean that we can stop talking about processes and start talking about ideas for how this country really will look in 11 years’ time.

- Will Britain survive beyond 2020?, by David Melding and published by the Institute of Welsh Affairs, is out now