The No voter’s guide to voting Yes
Bubble — By Adam Higgitt on November 17, 2009 6:00 am
Devolutionists should be confident about devolution, and let their opponents make the case for something else
AT LONG last, the All Wales Convention reports tomorrow. Little elaboration on the purpose of this body or the significance of its report is needed for most WalesHome.org readers. For the Labour-Plaid coalition, it is a key moment. And the talk is that it will live up the to the billing, with recommendations strong enough to all but commit the two parties to formally seek a referendum to turn the Assembly into a Parliament. This is way beyond constitutional navel gazing. This is more like the scrub-up before constitutional open heart surgery.
Yet for all of the anticipation of something big, there is also something incremental about Sir Emyr’s report. For some, it represents not a new direction, but another stage in Wales’s route from annex to state. Devolutionists will cheer if the former diplomat turns in a report with little wiggle room, but nationalists will cheer harder. For 85 years, Welsh political nationalism has chosen this programmatic route to statehood. Progress has been slow, but lately it has been sure. Without any discernible popular pressure devolution was introduced. Within a decade, that settlement was revisited and the option of an institutional upgrade was established. Then, the price for sustaining Labour in office was extracted; a commitment to trigger that option. Now, a referendum and hopefully an agreement to do so. Next, more powers still. Then, finally, the push for independence. One step at a time.
Meanwhile, unionism – a belief that a formal and meaningful constitutional relationship between the nations of Britain is worth retaining – has produced nothing with which to counter, or even disrupt this. The strategy (if indeed the response is worthy of such a term) has merely been to resist. And the reason why is even less defensible; 12 long years after the fact of devolution was settled, unionists are still arguing among themselves about its mode.
For Labour this is particularly unforgivable. The debate about whether the Assembly should have primary or secondary law-making powers has at times assumed the air of theological schism. Yet, for the sake of a more gentle leader’s itinerary, it would have been resolved years ago. Had John Smith lived instead of succumbing to a heart attack in 1994, the chances are that Wales would have got a Parliament straight off, possibly without even the bother of specifically consulting the voters. And even if this counterfactual argument seems recondite, it is is harder to dismiss the evidence that Labour has been gradually embracing greater degrees of autonomy for Wales over 40 years. By any reckoning, the step from Assembly to Parliament should not be a big one for Labour.
And yet it has managed to detain not just Labour, but the Conservatives as well. Into this irresolution has burrowed political nationalism. With a unionist opposition lacking in either confidence or clarity, nationalists have – by default – associated themselves with the reasonable and moderate arguments. Devolution, a unionist project to its core, has somehow come into the possession of nationalism.
For so long as that holds, there can be no proper discussion of the constitutional endgame of independence. Plaid may have declared that “Wales Can” but it would clearly much prefer to defer such a discussion until later. And why not? Any rational party with a stated objective supported by only one in 10 of the electorate would do the same. It makes perfect sense to build the case for independence slowly, and on the basis of gradually drawing more power and authority down from the centre.
Uunionism’s apparently generously assistance of this strategy is rather less rational. By remaining divided on the mundane question of how much devolution Wales should have, those who represent the majority viewpoint will continue to fail to press it. If there is anything like a popular consensus, it is probably for an autonomous Wales within some form of modernised British union or federation. What chance of that discussion, other than on the terms chosen by those who oppose it?
If Sir Emyr proposes a swift referendum tomorrow, some who want the above outcome (as well as those unionists of a less modern stripe) will be tempted to vote “no”. They should resist that urge, back a decisive “yes” vote and retake possession of devolution. Unionism cannot coalesce around the status quo, and it certainly cannot do so around the fantasy of a return to the unitary state. Only around a law-making institution can unionism itself unite. And it is only by being united that it can take control of the substantive constitutional debate of independence versus federation. Voting “yes” only looks like it is aiding nationalism’s incremental strategy. In fact, the opposite is true; it will accelerate the debate beyond nationalism’s programmatic comfort zone into an area most want to avoid for at least another decade.
Tags: All Wales Convention, constitutional reform, devolution, Plaid Cymru, Welsh Labour
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
18 Comments
Personally, I am one of the 10-15% who wants full independence, but I might be less vociferous about it if there was a palatable alternative, ie full autonomy within a federal UK.
I agree with you that this is probably the only stable long-term settlement for Wales (within the UK), and any intelligent unionists should recognise that fact and support devolution as a means of preserving the Union.
Unlike Penddu, I would be more vociferous about full independence, as retaining the Union and all its trappings would be a brake on the real change which is necessary for transformation.
The present constitution is mired in the past and needs to be swept aside so that a new order may develop and flourish.
Keeping the union alive would also perpetuate British nationalism and prevent the expression of each nation’s unique identity.
Yes, agreed.
Excellent piece, and a good, disabused call to arms.
It’s a very good point that there’s nothing essentially ‘nationalist’ about devolution per se, and though I think it’s pushing it to say it’s ‘unionist to its core’, I certainly agree that it’s perceived as in Nationalist ‘possession’. But it’s perceived in that way partly because certain members of the anti-devolution lobby have made it appear thus specifically in order to scare/browbeat/cajole/mislead people into seeing it as such. That is after all the stated aim of True Wales and the various politicians, tory and labour, to make it seem a ‘nationalist’ issue and a ‘nationalist’ project.
You’d be wrong to say that the nationalists have taken control of the idea and the process. They haven’t. It’s the serious anti-devolutionists who have depicted it thus. This stems from the failure of Labour (again) to act in its own long-term interests , and the code of silence imposed or self-imposed by Labour pro-devolution forces – a code of silence, one might add, that seems not to be (self-)imposed on Labour’s anti-devolution ‘slide towards independence’ brigade.
The best way to think about the anti-devolution brigade is not as anti-nationalists or even really anti-devolutionists but as anti- the parts of their own parties that want devolution. That’s why they exist, and they’re essentially an organised (and paranoid) pressure group that wants to police – from the inside – their own parties’ constitutional debates. Their arguments are non-existent and the debate they are engaged in is not really one about governance or constitution.
I think you’re right that the probable consensus is towards greater autonomy and some form of federalism, and that we won’t get that debate as things stand.
As someone who has voted both Plaid and Labour I don’t associate devolution with one or other party, and I’d hope – as I imagine you’d hope – that if and when the referendum comes, the issues will be as free of party agendas as possible.
NB – anyone know where People’s Voice stand on this? There are conflicting signals coming from them, not to sday, with Paul Starling on board, conflicted signals…
“Unionism cannot coalesce around the status quo, and it certainly cannot do so around the fantasy of a return to the unitary state.” I do hope True Wales are reading.
This is an excellent article, Adam, which poses the single biggest question that Labour opponents of further powers need to consider. If even half of the mainstream coverage of this issue over the next couple of days matches the quality of this column, then I’d be amazed.
Very strong contribution. Anti-devolutionists risk standing against the tide of history and certainly in Labour’s case it would weaken the party to have a significant contingent openly arguing against the position of their Assembly group.
Agreed, but I find it hard to rally to the banner of ‘unionism’. I have a pragmatic attachment to the UK: on balance it works. But emotinally Britishness doesn’t do much for me. Therefore your call for a ‘Unionist’ strategy leaves me a little cold.
I don’t think this is just a personal foible. I agree with your plea for a rational assement by Labour MPs (that who you mean, isn’t it?), but to win the position in the medium term in the face of an emotional argument for Independence the ‘unionist’ argument needs a better emotional narrative.
Lee
As Adam Price observed in his IWP lecture on Monday, colonisation of the mind is a vital component of any successful take over. Part of nationalism’s “counter-colonial counter culture” has been to toxify the entire unionist brand in the minds of many. As a result, it is now a somewhat tainted concept.
I take unionism only to be a belief – pragmatic or otherwise – in the benefits of a meaningful, formal and fair constitutional relationship between the constituent parts of the UK. You could call this federalism if you prefer; at this level of abstraction they are the same.
You might be right that unionism/federalism needs an emotional component to match the emotional appeal of nationalism. You may be right but, like you, I don’t feel it. I’m not even that wedded to it on a pragmatic basis, nor am I opposed to independence as a legitimate aspiration (in fact, in a well integrated European Union, it is legitimate to ask why Wales should be “double land locked”) .
But I’m pretty sure I’m against the argument going by default because of some elementary tactical blunders – and that is what is happening at the moment.
This is good and interesting. I think the reason I dispute the suggestion that nationalists have taken control of devolutionary narrative and momentum is that the idea implies that they’ve actually taken ownership of it. If so it’s happened by default, because I think Plaid has a lot of constitutional uncertainties in its cold storage as it were, which are kept there because the other parties haven’t staked their own claim to the devolution terrain. I don’t think Plaid ‘possess’ it; they’re just dealing with it pragmatically. This is why is makes no sense to me for the Labour party (yes, I think Lee’s right, that’s who you’re talking about) to dither on this, except for fear of splits.
The bottom line is that pro-devolution politicians in both Labour and Tory parties are afraid of claiming devolution for their parties because of a perceived internal backlash. It’s not rocket science. What you have outlined is a rational (as well as an emotional) reason for them to stake their claim to the debate which they’ve allowed to slip.
That’s why the book by David Melding is really an exemplary piece of thinking, and in its way more radical than much of what Plaid intellectuals have said since Devolution: because it reprtesents exactly that taking hold of the terrain. Plaid people who claimed Melding was as it were on the nationalist side either missed the point or hadn’t read the book: it is a fundemantally Unionist book, that takes full account not just of constitutional niceties, but of the emotional pull (not mine, but I can see it) of what being British means.
I’m not sure – Adam – that the unionism brand is toxified because of nationalists, it’s toxified because it is so often negatively stated (i.e. Wales would lose this that and the other if we did this that and the other, we can’t do this without money from England etc., we don;t want this that or the other from Europe, etc). There’s no reason it should be a dirty word, and it isn’t, but it’s certainly one of the most ineptly-defended and negatively-stated ones I’ve come across. And if, like me (an Anglo-Belgian living in Wales) you find official British nationalism monoglot, monocultural, inward-looking, and often anti-European (and likely to become more so when the tories get in), labels like unionist , nationalist, etc correspond to nothing in my lived reality. They aren’t categories I work with.
PS – I still want to know what People’s Voice think. I ask because it does affect how those who, with Peter Law, trod the pavements of B-G during the 97 referendum, will vote. And will PV BG and PV Torfaen go the same way? We never get decent media reports on what they’re doing and thinking, and it seems a pity. They’re going to be quite influential, because they operate in True Wales strongholds too.
Can WalesHome invite a PV essay or something? The official media ignore them.
Thanks Patrick for an interesting suggestion. I will speak to Trish
Best
Daran
Hi Patrick
Agree with much that you have to say. Adam Price’s mock-invitation to David Melding was revealing, in that it demonstrated how nationalism has conflated its own ideology with that of devolution (Jon Osmond was also guilty of this recently when he lumped support for independence with support for a Parliament together and stated that this group collectively favoured further devolution). As you rightly say, Melding’s analysis was that of a unionist, but anything other than a die-in-the ditch, have-what-we-hold approach to the constitution is now seen by Plaid as part of its project. It is an extraordinary surrender on the part of those who advanced, and who still believe in devolution.
With that in mind, I suspect you are also right about unionism’s complicity in the toxification of its own brand.
Best
This is a good thread.
I do agree with Adam that for those of us who are both Labour and broadly pro-Britain this is the wrong place to try and draw a line in the sand.
The concern about the separatist ratchet – i.e. that it only turns in a single direction – maybe true or not but, like it or not, the fact is that since 1997 we have moved down this path and the debate needs to be framed in the context of visions and values, not the pros and cons of the LCO framework. Fundamentally the issue is about where, short of independence the devolution process should settle. Although devolution will remain dynamic, a clearer delineation of what powers lie where is no disaster.
Full disclosure; I’m a mongrel. My mother was born in Inverness, my father in Cork. I entered the world in Northwick Park General Hospital, Wembley. Since the age of five (aside from time at university) I lived in Wales (first Swansea, then Cardiff). Following unpleasantness a couple of years ago I now work and live in London. I own a house in central Cardiff, which I’m considering selling. I only consider myself as having a Welsh identity on the 7/8 days a year when Wales are playing major international rugby or football matches. More important identities to me would include: Arsenal fan; Swansea City fan; enthusiastic(ish) cyclist; trade union member; humanist; chess player. If pressed I would tend to say that I am a citizen of the first world who happens to hold a British passport.
Thing is that there are at least as many mongrels like me in Wales as there are pure Celts such as Simon Dyda or AluninDyfed who measure people primarily on a scale dictated by their Welshness or Britishness. Our interest in constitutional debate is fleeting and based around perceptions of material advantage. By definition those of us who don’t care much about welshness come late to the debate. I am more concerned for example with who will run Britain in 12 months time than who will run Wales in 24 – not least because the former is more important than the later in the sense that whether it has primary powers or not the Assembly budget will reflect the decisions made in Westminster.
The slippery slope concern of unionists needs to be recognised not in an unthinking ‘thus far and no further’ reaction, but by putting forward a positive vision that can be contrasted with the fantasies peddled by Dyda, Dyfed etc. We should argue for tax raising powers and the abandonment of Barnett. The idea that independence means something for nothing will only be challenged by making our new Welsh political masters and mistresses fiscally accountable. We also need a UK wide consensus on the impact of devolution on our constitution. Debate has been focused on Scotland and even today copying the Scots seems to be the main plank of the separatist’s transitional programme. It’s about time that the non separatist majority in Wales wakes up and starts to challenge the separatist premise that everything the UK did was always evil.
This is worth a post all on its own, but I feel Adam makes a serious error in his analysis of national identity by failing to pay sufficient attention to the second world war and the accession to the EEC in 1973. These rather than local issues are the two events that have had the most profound effects on how national identity is perceived and serve in large part to explain the generational differences that come out in quantitative opinion research.
Patrick Mcguinness has defined “the stated aim of True Wales and the various politicians, Tory and Labour, to make it seem a ‘nationalist’ issue and a ‘nationalist’ project.” This is an exaggeration and an avoidance of the other and more important stated intention of True Wales. However, in the absence of any voice of concern by the other political parties about the separatists nationalistic socialists intention to ski as fast as they can to autonomy within the EU, someone has to draw attention to the separatists strategic plan and the tactics they are using.
A representative of Plaid on the Radio Wales show said that he was not concerned with the use of the powers under part 4 but that they are in place as a precursor to the next step, defined by Adam Price as independence within twenty years. Any change in the constitution should be examined in the light of how the change can be used. Tomorrow’s Wales want to use the powers in Part 4 to change the Government of Wales 2006 Act (GWA) to redefine the powers of the Assembly beyond the referendum issues of granting Part 4. These changes will provide the basis of the next and final step of implementing autonomy within the EU a.k.a. independence. Granting Part 4 isn’t the only method of providing effective government.
Hywel Francis MP evidenced in the Welsh Affairs Select Committee’s submission to the All Wales Convention (AWC), ‘the LCO process is complex because law-making is complex and any system which ‘changes the rules according to which people are governed’ can only ‘be simplified to a certain extent without risking the essential checks and balances’ which ‘ensure fairness and equal treatment under the law.’” Peter Hain is also of the opinion that the current system is working as intended. The set-up at Cardiff Bay is such that even if Part 4 was granted, the powers couldn’t be used instantly. It is probably the case that there will be no real difference in the obtaining and using the powers contained in the GWA by either Part 3 or Part 4. The Assembly have obtained twelve LCO to date and used four. Obtaining them has proven to be easier than implementing them and nothing will change under Part 4.
Sir Emyr Jones Parry pointed out that there will be a greater cost under Part 4 than Part 3 because of ther need of additional lawyers. There lawyers are not yet in place, nor can they be until Part 4 is granted. The time to achieve all of this under Part 4 means that ‘full powers’ will be far off and probably not in place until the beginning of the next but one Assembly in six years time, In this six years any necessary powers will have been transferred under Part 3. From a practical point of view there is ‘much ado about nothing – MUCH”. The only reason why people want Part 4, is not based on need but political ambition…autonomy within the EU.
It is for this reason that True Wales continues to draw attention to the pointlessness of an expensive referendum on Part 3 or Part 4. The issue is not about practical government which can and is being delivered under Part 3 but the intention of using Part 4 to revise the GWA to position the Assembly to step to autonomy. True Wales main concern is better government from the Assembly, which needs to address issue raised by Kirsty Williams who says “There are many problems in Wales that need addressing; the struggling economy, poor health service and an education system facing big cuts.” Time, money and effort would all be better spent on addressing these problems rather than diverting them to a referendum about the esoteric issues of Part 3 or Part 4.
This is what the AWC report says re costs:
3.2.9 This evidence suggests that while costs are an important dimension, in particular for the public’s perceptions, the likely impact on the National Assembly for Wales of a move to Part 4 would be, broadly speaking, financially neutral in terms of current budget allocations. In Whitehall, there should be a small, but unquantifiable, release of capacity if consideration of LCOs were no longer needed.
3.2.10 Should the National Assembly for Wales move to Part 4, the saving for the Welsh Assembly Government of £1.98 million from not having to go through the processes of acquiring powers through LCOs and Framework Powers in UK Bills would likely be reallocated to the formulation of policy and drafting of Assembly Bills.
Hendre falls for the euphemism of political langauge. “financially neutral ” was gently mentioned by Sir Emyr in his verbal presentation as £1.8m more.
Len Gibbs,
The ‘financially neutral’ phrase is qualified in the report. However, I am puzzled by your insinuation that a step towards autonomy in the EU could possibly be taken without recourse to a further referendum in Wales.
The Archbishop of Wales laid out the process in an address in Cardiff last year. Part 4 is associated with Part 7. This allows the GWA 2006 to be modified without further permission and once modified the legislation in place would allow for further changes that do not require an input from the voters.
I take it you’re referring to the Archbishop’s lecture to the Cardiff Law School last year? It’s true that the Archbishop has spoken of a Scottish-style model whereby all powers not reserved are devolved instead of our current system of prescribed devolved powers but since the SNP requires a referendum to begin to ski to autonomy, I fail to see how we’re going to be able to fall off any precipice into independence.
Len Gibbs, you can probably be reassured that the Assembly Government’s spend on roads, schools, hospitals and jobs is considerably larger than the All Wales’ Convention budget! And for that matter, ALOT larger than the £1.8m price of moving to Part 4!
The Assembly Government spends billions of pounds on those things, the vast majority of its budget. I think regardless of which party we support, alot of “time, effort and money” goes into those things. It is deliberately obstructionist to suggest otherwise.