Untangling nation and state will lead to a better debate about our future
"Too much debate centres on the subjective question about what Wales is...rather than the objective question of what is the best future"
I WOULDN’T say that I’ve always been entirely comfortable with my own sense of what it is to be Welsh; but that doesn’t exactly make me unique. I was born and brought up in the Cardiff area, to a non Welsh-speaking mother from Barry and an English father from Newcastle upon Tyne, at a time when the Welsh language was pretty much invisible; being both “of Wales” and “of Britain” was the inevitable starting point. The sense of nationality which I feel today is something which has grown, developed, and changed over the years, and something which I still find hard to define in objective terms.
I’ve never had the same difficulty with my political philosophy, however. As an illustration of the difference between the two issues, the Welsh language has become a part of my personal sense of identity, but I was a political nationalist before I could speak a word of Welsh, and would still be a political nationalist even if the language were, by some unfortunate happenstance, to disappear from the face of the earth.
The roots of my political philosophy are a matter for another day; the point of this introduction to clarify that my politics is based on much more than any sense of identity as a Welshman, and that my political outlook could and would survive changes or developments in that sense of identity. In other words, considering myself to be Welsh is not enough to make me a political nationalist, and being a political nationalist does not depend on a particular, or indeed, any, sense of national identity.
Not everyone would agree with that, of course. There are other nationalists for whom the existence of Welsh nationality is, in itself, sufficient argument to justify full Welsh autonomy, or, indeed, to require such autonomy. But even at a very basic level, the right of every nation to self-determination under the UN charter does not carry any obligation to exercise that right. On the contrary, any right to do something necessarily also includes the right not to do it.
That’s not the only sense, however, in which trying to create a direct and inflexible link between nationality and statehood obstructs, rather than facilitates, debate in Wales about our constitutional future.
Discussions about Wales building on its sense of nationality, without falling back on “narrow nationalism” are commonplace. The confusion between national identity and political nationalism has created a context in which some proud Welsh men and women end up being almost apologetic about their national pride, for fear of being associated with the political aspirations of the likes of myself.
They should not be. And they shouldn’t need to feel that they are, either.
There are a number of objective factors – geography, history, culture, language, values – which help to define whether a nation exists or not. No one of them alone is enough, and the combination of them can and does vary from area to area, and from individual to individual. There is no single, universal, definable sense of Welsh identity; we all experience what it is to be Welsh in the context of our own community, family, and personality. And yet, for all of those differences, the majority of the population of Wales consider themselves to be, in one way or another, Welsh.
Ultimately, it is, for me, that self-identification which creates the Welsh nation rather than any external, objective criteria. That means that we can have – and probably do have – as many different senses of “Welshness” as there are Welsh people.
It also follows that nationality doesn’t have to be an exclusive, either-or concept. Some argue that people have to make a simple choice; they can either be Welsh or they can be British. It is an argument which has the advantage of simplicity, but for me, holding a view which requires me to deny the validity of the subjective self-identification of most of the population of Wales would be deeply unsatisfactory. If they are quite relaxed about considering themselves to be both Welsh and British, why should I not be equally relaxed about accepting that fact?
It doesn’t prevent the majority from taking pride in, and expressing, their Welsh nationality, or from wanting to see a greater and stronger sense of Welshness developing. It is a perspective within the Welsh family with which I want to engage and debate, honestly and openly, about the future direction of the family as a whole. It also seems to me that it’s a perspective from which we don’t hear enough.
One side of the discussion about the constitutional future of Wales often appears to be largely composed of people who either deny the existence of a Welsh nation, or who are deeply uncomfortable with their own sense of identity. I’m not at all convinced that they are representative of Wales, but I don’t understand why we don’t hear a great deal more from those who are completely confident about their own sense of identity, proud to call themselves Welsh, and convinced that autonomy is the wrong answer for Wales. And, of course, able to argue that case coherently without resorting to the sort of axiomatic statements which I reject when they come from ‘my own side’.
The result is that far too much debate centres on the subjective question about what Wales is and whether it is a nation or a region rather than the objective question of what is the best future for these two western peninsulas of an offshore European island. It really isn’t – or shouldn’t be – necessary for us to resolve the one question before discussing the other. Believing that the geographical entity called Wales should become an independent state does not require a particular – or indeed any – concept of nationality as a precondition.
Taking nationality out of nationalism may sound like an odd thing for a nationalist to suggest, but I would describe it more as being a case of accepting that there are different senses of nationality, and taking that whole issue out of the constitutional debate.
There is a robust, objective case for Wales to take responsibility for its own future. Others disagree. But we can have a much better, and more objective, discussion, if it isn’t clouded by subjective questions of identity, or the adoption of simplistic and axiomatic positions based on those questions of identity.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flickr
Lucid, to the point, and painfully clear.
As an incomer who wears a “wannabe Welsh” t-shirt because no other description seems to fit I still find: too many Welsh speaking people afraid of using their language, embarrassed by it, and apologetic (me, thrice times failed learner); monoglot English speakers who somehow equate Welsh independence with force fed language classes; a Welsh political class lacking in quality and vision and aspiring merely to be like that other place; and, to take John Dixon’s last paragraph, a collection of people (a nation?) terrified of the prospect of taking “responsibility for its own future”.
There is no disputing the words of Plaid’s National Chair where he writes …
…There is a robust, objective case for Wales to take responsibility for its own future.
There is just one small point, John Dixon omitted a few words that the majority of his supporters would expect …
….. for its own future as a Republic.
The “Clouds” of John Dixon are not “questions of identity”, but questions of where the nationalist would take Wales.
He is precisely trying to remove “questions of identity” from the debate. Nobody is “taking Wales” anywhere, except for the people of Wales.
Illtyd Luke, when you write Nobody is “taking Wales” anywhere, except for the people of Wales it sounds very plausible, and if the words were from the leaders or supporters of other Welsh political groups it might be accepted at face value. Unfortunately for Wales, John Dixon is leading Plaid Cymru, the only political group in Wales that advocates separation from the United Kingdom.
This is a timely article from John Dixon. As a devolutionist but not a dissolutionist I get fed up of seeing the debate on elective devolution being conducted in such a polarized way on the blogosphere. I was first tempted into being a ‘bloggee’ by the constant repetition, both in the blogosphere and in MSM, of George Robertson’s quote about devolution killing nationalism stone dead. Devolution wasn’t about killing nationalism stone dead it was about finding a better system of governance than administrative devolution and a better union. It’s very handy for the London media to pin devolution onto ‘the nats’; it enables them to ignore the inadequacies of Westminster/Whitehall rule, both past and present.
And John is right in suggesting there is a danger of people being pressured into choosing between political nationalism and Welsh national sentiment. It’s high time the British Labour Party found a coherent narrative for a devolved Britain, something Gordon Brown has failed absymally to do despite all his efforts.
So if it’ not based on identity what is the “robust, objective case for Wales to take responsibility for its own future”?
An interesting article which I must admit, I haven’t fully understood. A few more readings required…
But one early point that springs to mind – without the existence of Wales as a Nation, is it really that practical to have regional devolution / independence when geography is so against it?
I am a firm believer in the Nation, but not a committed political nationalist. Being a Gwent resident and a Welsh speaker, I can see the same Welshness that I experience in my West Walian and North Walian friends as I see in my Gwentian friends (minus the language, mostly!). Yet very close to the border, ( could be either side, admittedly) I see that change.
I also think that England as a whole makes many decisions which are detrimental to Wales, because whole-of-England solutions are not necessarily suitable for the different demographic in Wales. We never get our say due to democracy and weight of numbers (after all, even London outnumbers us by 3-1!)
But again, strip away the “Nation” and make us a “Region of Britain”, and the argument even for regional devolution starts to run a bit thin.
Doesn’t that make the debate about “identity” and the existence of a nation a part of the “core” of the independence argument?
Introspective and Philosophical post. Well done for some intellect on the blogosphere.
We need to integrate more and more in Europe in the next 30 years. Nationalists in any region or state or country do not forsee this.
Looking to the future and thinking about the future is the key for Wales and a Natonalist ideal is not in keeping with the demands of what the future holds.
Excellent article, though as it chimes with what I believe, I am biased. It seems to me that most things one discusses in Wales – from politics to literature, as I have discovered all too recently – are bound up in identity politics. I can’t think of a country in which issues of governance are so damagingly bound up in identity politics, and often the most kneejerk and caricatured versions of these. It affects everything from the ‘more powers’ debate to what sort media we might have. IDPs are not productive and rarely interesting.
Senn’s comment “We need to integrate more and more in Europe in the next 30 years. Nationalists in any region or state or country do not forsee this” is rather lazy. As you surely know, the reason the UK is so out of step with Europe is that anti-Europeanism or Europhobia is endemic to Tory political culture, and that Labour haven’t been much better. The UK is a semi-detached island off the shores of Europe, and it shows in everything from our mentality to our public transport system via the working regulations improvements Labour have constantly opted out of over the last 12 years. In fact, the only time I hear Tory and New Labour celebrate their Euro-activities is when they’re telling us they’ve safeguarded the ‘ope-out’ and the ‘veto’. Man the barricades, here comes Europe…
From where I’m standing at the moment, the best way of improving our European relationships in Wales would be to gain a large measure of self-governance, at the level of, say, a Belgian region or a German Lande. The only party interested in doing that seems to be Mr Dixon’s. Call that ‘nationalism’ if you have to, but I’ll bet you that a Wales running its own affairs would be better integrated into Europe form the word “Go’ than the UK as a whole has been in the last 60 years.
I know it’s an old chestnut, but there’s a species of British Nationalism which we’re force-fed which is inward-looking, sub-xenophobic and jingoistic that’s urgently in need of remedying, and won’t be remedied in the coming years because the political culture is happy to play on it. The Labour Party I supported and canvassed for in the 1990s promised to change that, and for a couple of years (97-2000) it looked like it would. In the end it hasn’t. Remember the idiotic identity politics that got dragged into the debate about the Euro and the Queen’s head?
In the battle between two Nationalisms, it’s the fate of the smaller one to be depicted as inward and closed off, and the larger one to pretend it’s cosmopolitan and international. But it doesn’t work like that.
Like Iestyn above I find this article abit convoluted and I will need to read it again (and again) before I understand the point of it. Erm…not your fault mine probably. Even so, although these navel gazing exercises are all very well how do they help in getting more voters for Plaid which is presumeably what a National Chair should be doing?
It’s jobs and the economy that needs addressing not the concept of nationalism and Welsh identity. As far as I’m concerned, if you live in Wales, contribute to Wales by paying taxes and shopping here, get on with your neighbours and support the national rugby team in its everlasting battle with England then you can be ‘Welsh’ whether you have mottled green skin, two heads, tentacles for arms and originally come from Planet Kinnockia (well maybe not that particular planet!).
CP – John used this column exactly how it is intended: as a space to air his ideas. He is allowed to waste a few minutes of the day on something other than canvassing, just as he – and WalesHome – are allowed to discuss something other than the economy (although we’ve done that in considerable detail – more than any other site of our kind). It’s for us and our contributors to decide what goes on the site.
John Dixon:
Great article, absolute common sense.
You say, “I don’t understand why we don’t hear a great deal more from those who are completely confident about their own sense of identity, proud to call themselves Welsh, and convinced that autonomy is the wrong answer for Wales.” By your definition and my reckoning that makes two of us and 2,999,998 others.
May be it is because we have both been consultants and met lots of people who have as much influenced who we are as much as we influenced them.
As the lone voice I have made a number of recent contributions to these posting in which I have argued the case of diversity of Welshness including describing it as a ‘hybrid nation’.
I am completely confident as to my Welshness…I’m born and bred Aberavon and you can’t get much more Welsh – at least my kind of Welsh – than that. When lecturing the USA I spend five minutes at the beginning allowing the audience to ‘get used to my accent’ by giving them a short talk about how the Welsh influenced the USA…and you can”t get more patriotic than that.
As to the political aspect of your article, I think ‘nats’ are ‘nuts’.
Martin Johnes asks, “So if it’ not based on identity what is the “robust, objective case for Wales to take responsibility for its own future”?” The answer there isn’t and doesn’t have to be a robust, objective case for Wales etc…except that if the majority of the people living in what is recognised as a land area called Wales, then they can decide to pursue autonomy. There is no doubt about that possibility but there is no compelling case for doing so. Hence I think that ‘nats’ are ‘nuts’.
patrick mcguinness – if you put your head above the parapet you are going to be shot at…with a marshmallow bullet. You write, “there’s a species of British Nationalism which we’re force-fed which is inward-looking, sub-xenophobic and jingoistic”. An odd description of what is British. I am very proud of the way that all of Britain stood alone in 1939, the men and women who fought for freedom and democracy and I still, after all these years, think of the young men from my street who didn’t come home or came home horrendously marred physically and mentally. Then we all sang “Rule Britannia” “never, never will be slaves”. I do hope that you, as half-Belgium, is not describing these people as “inward-looking, sub-xenophobic and jingoistic”. If they hadn’t some of those qualities we all might be speaking German.
Iestyn and Cambria Politico say they found the article difficult and had to read it again to understand it. I think that indicates the problem they have about being Welsh. I read the article easily and understood it. May be its because I’m Welsh and think that, despite the differences, everyone else is too. It just happens I think the nats’ are ‘nuts’.
John, good article…and Duncan, well done.
Len, your objection goes like this: “You write, “there’s a species of British Nationalism which we’re force-fed which is inward-looking, sub-xenophobic and jingoistic”. An odd description of what is British.”
What? Where was I offering a description of “what is British” Len? My description is of “a species of” modern British Nationalism”, and has nothing to do with the question of ‘what is British’. As if I’d ask such a dumb question or put it so stupidly.
I’m puzzled that you need to put words into my mouth, and then lecture me (or rather , the half-Belgian part of me, which is obviously the one you feel benefits more from your history lesson) on WW2, which has zero to do with the Europhobia and sub-xenophobia I object to. The latter is rather more contemporary – and considerably less justified – than the collective patriotism engendered by WW2.
Your strategy rather smacks of opportunism: misrepresenting an opponent, then invoking the horror of war for rhetorical gain, and then trying to use that war in order to justify examples of contemporary sub-xenophobia and europhobia by conflating the two. It strikes me that that’s as good a example of nutty nat-speak as I could ask for, incidentally , so I guess I’m grateful to have it in writing.
It’s a rather disappointing and uncharacteristically crude intervention of yours this time, Len.
I forgot: ‘You, as half-Belgian’. Thanks for the reminder Len. I’ll go and get the half-Belgian and see if he has anything to add to the above. He was last seen drinking Leffe under a table, German phrasebook in hand. The coward! I’ll have a word with him…
Firstly, Thanks to all those who’ve provided comment and feedback on the article. If I may, a few brief replies.
John Tyler: Not entirely sure what point you’re making with the words ‘as a republic’. Yes, I’m a republican; I see no role for heredity in selecting the head of state. But I’m a republican in a UK as well as a Welsh context. If Wales became independent, I’d want to see a Welsh republic; and if it doesn’t, I’d want to see a UK republic (although I guess we’d need to find a name other than ‘kingdom’!). There are very many unionists who are also republicans, including (whisper it quietly) even a few Conservatives. It’s not relevant to the point that I was making.
Martin Johnes: Fair question, but there are limits to how much one can put into a single article – or a comment like this. I set out various elements of the argument as I see it on my own blog from time to time; maybe I’ll look at bringing them all together at some point.
Iestyn: “without the existence of Wales as a Nation, is it really that practical to have regional devolution / independence when geography is so against it”. The concept of ‘devolution’ or ‘independence’ can stand alone, in my view, with no need to depend on any concept of nationality. That was basically the thrust of my argument. However, the existence of a feeling of nationality does impact on what the units should be. So, ‘Wales’ makes more sense to me than say, ‘Greater Merseyside’ or ‘Severnside’ because of the way in which we as people identify with it. But the underlying issue of ‘how’ we are governed can be discussed and analysed separately from the issue of identity. There are states in the world whose geography is more problematic than Wales – one of the main issues for Wales is the extent to which transport links have been created on an east-west rather than north-south basis. That’s partly a result of geography, of course. But it’s also partly a result of a London-centric view of both geography and government.
Senn: “We need to integrate more and more in Europe in the next 30 years. Nationalists in any region or state or country do not forsee this”. On this point, I disagree. The European context is central to Plaid’s definition of ‘Independence’, and we have been making the point for many years.
Cambria Politico: “although these navel gazing exercises are all very well how do they help in getting more voters for Plaid which is presumeably what a National Chair should be doing”. Actually, I’ve always believed that Plaid’s job is about much more than winning votes. We also need to win the arguments, which is not at all the same thing. And we need to do that at several levels.
Part of the problem which we face in our day to day campaigning is distinguishing between a number of different things which often become conflated. For instance there are people who support:
Independence for Wales
Building a sense of nationality
Promoting the Welsh language
Plaid Cymru
Whilst there is a level of overlap between those, there are, nevertheless, some people in each of the four categories who are not in any of the other three. Failing to understand that not only makes it harder to debate in terms which are relevant to people; it also allows those who oppose any one of the four to deliberately confuse the issue by bringing in any or all of the other three.
Len Gibbs: Support from an unexpected quarter! But I’m sure that you won’t be surprised that I disagree with your assertion that nats are nuts. Your comment was giong quite well up until that point! I don’t entirely agree with your take on history either, but part of what I was trying to say is that I recognise that there is a widely held sense of what it is to be both Welsh and British, and I feel that nationalists like myself need to engage with that, rather than tell people that they’re wrong, which is often the way we have managed to come across.
Thank you for a most interesting introduction, Mr. John Dixon! I believe there are those that have shared, and currently do share, your discomfort with what it means to ‘be’ Welsh, and when confronted with the question of nationality their response often comes across ambiguously. Your insight no doubt speaks for many people. One’s sense of self evolves over time and is based primarily on experience. Hopefully this experience is rooted in education and/or street smarts, each offering a kernel of enlightenment into one’s self.
Wow that sounded too metaphysical.
I have to admit I am perplexed with your statement that “being a political nationalist does not dependent on a particular […] sense of national identity.” You are correct that one’s sense of nationality is based on self-identification. According to the 2001 Labour Force Survey, 87% of Wales born residents consider themselves to be of ‘Welsh ethnicity’ what ever language they speak, a similar result found in the 2001 Scottish census. Furthermore, about 7% of the total population of Wales consider themselves to be ‘Welsh and other’, with the most common ‘other’ that of ‘British ethnicity’. Additionally, according to Professor John Davies, with unemployment dropping in Wales to 28.5% in 1925 and Welsh economic concerns sidelined in the UK national elections of 1922, 1923, and 1924, there were many “eager to make their nationality the focus of Welsh politics”.
I am respectfully unconvinced with your statement that nationality is not central to the debate of aspirational statehood for Wales. I believe that it is the opposite, that the self-identification of “Welsh ethnicity” (regardless of and separate from language) as revealed in the survey is central to that question. However, I do recognize that there are exceptions, such as the new residents to Wales who view political independence of Wales within the community of Nations, in partnership with the European Union, as desirable to retain wealth within the country to help build the country.
I do agree with your sentiment that every nation of people has a right to exercise, or not, self-determination in whatever political expression democratically represented. Right now, I suspect that that self-determination is manifest in the desire for more devolved authority to the Assembly over every day kitchen table issues that affect all residents of Wales. Questions of ‘statehood’ are currently secondary to employment, healthcare, and education and- for some- language.
@ John Tylor, with respect, not all (or even most, really) Welsh nationalists are ‘republicans’, with many disapproving disrespect towards heads-of-state. Many Welsh nationalists are in fact monarchists, though prehaps not ‘British monarchists’. It may be of interest to know that there lives today a representative and heir of the Aberffraw legacy as Welsh princes of Wales, who may directly trace their family back to Owain Gwynedd, Gruffydd ap Cynan, Rhodri the Great and to the semi legendary Cunedda. Dr. DJ Davies, author of many Plaid pamphlets and influential in shaping long term Plaid ideology, according to John Davies, wrote that an independent Wales should restore its monarchy to provide a personal focus for nationalism while political parties crafted policy.
@ Len Gibbs I agree with your observation of Wales as a ‘hybrid’ nation, and believe that the ‘diversity of Welshness’ is further enriched by others adding their voice to the Choir of Wales. You may be interested to note Professor John Davies gave a key note speech entitled “Wales and America” in which appears in the North American Journal of Welsh Studies. In it, he describes how the concept of ‘Wales’ as a nation was partially an invention of America. He said “to be to be Welsh in Wales was to be from Carmarthenshire or Anglesey or Glamorganshire or Denbighshire. To be Welsh in America was to be Welsh’.”
http://www.flint.umich.edu/~ellisjs/Davies.PDF
patrick mcguinness:
I love the subtledly of your argument..accuse your opponent of an imagined fault and than demolish them. You say, “Your strategy rather smacks of opportunism: misrepresenting an opponent, then invoking the horror of war for rhetorical gain, and then trying to use that war in order to justify examples of contemporary sub-xenophobia and europhobia by conflating the two. It strikes me that that’s as good a example of nutty nat-speak as I could ask for, incidentally , so I guess I’m grateful to have it in writing.” And then pour scorn, “a rather disappointing and uncharacteristically crude intervention of yours this time”.
You missed the point…you attacked ‘a species of British Nationalism’ without defining precisely the species you had in mind…and then demolished them. I made a patriotic defence of British nationalism – the one with a small ‘n’. And, as to avoid xenophobia, I only have good memories of my contact with Belgium people…and they do make wonderful lager.
John: My agreement with you on who is Welsh is based on the obvious diversity of the people within Wales, many of whom have a history of forefathers within Wales over many generations. Any political movement within Wales has not only to acknowledge that but to include them in the outcomes. The problem as you have stated and the difficultly Iestyn and Cambria Politico had in understanding it illustrates that many people who have a linguistic origin (if I may be allowed to remain polite) not only refuse to acknowledge the diversity of origin but exclude monoglots from being Welsh. This rankles with many and sets a divide that is unnecessary. We are all in the contemporary sense Welsh.
Ultimately, politics is “its about the economy stupid’. And that’s why I think ‘nats’ are ‘nuts’. It’s not about them as people, but their economic policies. A simple question by way of illustration. Why are we spending £800,000 on subsidising IWJ and his friends to fly to Cardiff/Ynys Mon/Cardiff when we don’t have the money to fill in the potholes in the A470? – used by more than 28,000 per annum.
“In other words, considering myself to be Welsh is not enough to make me a political nationalist, and being a political nationalist does not depend on a particular, or indeed, any, sense of national identity.
Building a sense of nationality -> Plaid Cymru -> Independence for Wales”
QED
I recall former Ynys Mon MP and Secretary of State for Wales, the late Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, stating how Plaid Cymru stood for the very idea that “being Welsh is political”. And so the corollary of this statement is shown in the rearranged chart above.
re:
“Part of the problem which we face in our day to day campaigning is distinguishing between a number of different things which often become conflated. For instance there are people who support:
Independence for Wales
Building a sense of nationality
Promoting the Welsh language
Plaid Cymru”
I think a significant issue facing Plaid quite frankly is that these issues (Independence and nationality) dominate the party. Most people want to know how kitchen table concerns like employment, healthcare, and education. How would Plaid policies affect those concerns?
To David Llewellyn, I think it is a good point you make that Plaid pay lip service to “bread and butter” issues just to keep in the flow of mainstream politics, but their overarching strategy, their reason to exist, indeed their vision is unquestionably independence for Wales.
In a world that is changing rapidly there are huge challenges and yet great, exciting opportunities for people in Wales, so long as political actors who take the decisions focus on policy areas that will strengthen our economy to meet these goals.
To be successful in the future Wales needs to continue building bridges and looking outwards. Yes, we can be a big, clever nation in a global economy (just look at Israel and Singapore – small in size) that puts an increasing premium on creativity and innovation.
What we don’t want after the difficult global economic downturn is the continuous distraction of dry constitutional matters which drain the energy from the key drivers and catalysts of a reinvigorated Wales in a recovering UK economy.
So I am left to ask, what is the point of Plaid?
Well, Len… if you’d read my comment, you’d have seen that I very specifically mention the kind of British Nationalism I object to in the context of Europe , which was after all the context of the point by Senn I was responding to. Hence my use of the word ‘Europhobia’ and my mention of the Euro ‘debate’.
The species of British nationalism I object to is made up of cod-nationalism, bogus identity politics, straightforward xenophobia, siege mentality and insecurity. It affects a range of issues, from immigration to the Euro. You see it in the pages of the Daily Mail and many other tabloids, often accompanied by verbal assaults on immigrants, asylum-seekers and refugees, and backed up with the kind of comments we’ve recently seen from a certain Welsh tory about some minorities (foreogne ones too, it appears, rather than ‘indigenous’ people like “us”) being more “barbaric” than others. A recent front page headline by the Daily Express about the ‘soaring birth rate of ‘immigrants’ that would soon ‘swamp’ indigenous Brits made me wonder if were weren’t already in the foothills of something not unlike fascism. The ongoing attacks on multiculturalism is another example of British Nationalism’s nasty underbelly. That underbelly in view is extremely powerful and influential, and we’re going to be seeing a lot more of it in the months and years to come.
This Brit Nat mentality is pretty pervasive, and many politicians kowtow to it. Excellent English singers and comedians such as Billy Bragg and Mark Steele oppose it, as do some newspapers (Guardian and Mirror come to mind) abecause they know it gives their own national pride (it’s my own too, incidentally) a bad name.
That’s why I was so surprised to see you insinuate that my comments about that brand of Brit Nat-ism were an insult to those who died or were wounded in WW2, and why – just for a moment – I wondered if you were trying to defend the above-mentioned manifestations of a very unpleasant kind of nationalism by saying they were comparable to the patriotism of wartime Britain.
I personally don’t think Plaid or any other Welsh nationalist outfit has anything to learn about tolerance, pluralism or internationalism from that strand of British Nationalism, and it seems to me to be a serious failure of political scrutiny that the excesses and phobias of Brit Nat ideology are never brought into discussion of the supposed failings of Welsh nationalism.
Incidentally, David Philips, what does this jargon mean: “key drivers and catalysts of a reinvigorated Wales in a recovering UK economy.” Do you mean “people and businesses generating growth as we come out of recession”? Is that from Yes Minister?
patrick mcguinness
Well, there we have it Patrick. Great English! Flowing, lyrical, musical, cadent, stirring, fantastic fiction. You must have read “A Farewell to Arms” or you’re a secret reader of the Daily Express. Thank you for having drawn my attention to the type of thing they write in the Daily Mail. I’m glad I don’t buy it.
“As to “I personally don’t think ……… Welsh nationalist outfit has anything to learn about tolerance,” I missed a dinner appointment the other evening because the tourist signs to the ASIAN owned hotel had the name of the venue, English and incapable of translation into Welsh, covered over with dark green paint. Who do you think did it, immigrant owners of another Asian restaurant or the BNP?
Mr Dixon … with respect …
… reminding people that the ultimate goal of Plaid is an Independent republic of Wales is always relevant, it puts things into political perspective.
Whilst people (of all political persuasions) might consider a republic as an alternative to the constitutional monarchy we have in the United Kingdom, it is only the Plaid nationalists that would sunder the union and create a republic for their narrow political objectives, you might like to explain Plaid’s intention towards “Decentralised Socialism” to Mr Llewellyn above, no mention of a Royal family in the Plaid constitution, Welsh (Aberffraw) or otherwise.
Spin Mr D, spin, CP has the rights of conditions in Wales today where he writes It’s jobs and the economy that needs addressing not the concept of nationalism and Welsh identity … … get on with your neighbours and support the national rugby team in its everlasting battle with England … etc
Re D. Phillips:
Respectfully, I did not write that “Plaid pay[s] lip service” to bread and butter issues. I wrote that issues of nationality and independence obscure Plaid’s economic critique. Plaid members need to be proactive and express their economic critique clearly. Why would voting Plaid be better then other? Undoubtedly, independence within the framework of the community of nations, in partnership with the European Union, is the long-term goal of Plaid policy. This is unambiguous tenet of the party, and those that vote for Plaid are not unaware of this.
Well, perhaps Asghar was. *shrug*
I completely agree that Wales has the potential to regain a leading role throughout the world “building bridges and looking outward”, as it did when Coal was King. Then, Wales was the Kuwait of energy production with Welsh coal fueling the economic engine of world economies. However, when Coal was King profits were largely siphoned off outside of Wales rather then invested inwards into education and infrastructure. Dr. DJ Davies was a proponent of the Tennessee Valley Authority as a template to the economic rejuvenation of Wales. The more I study that public-private corporation the more I am convinced it is a solid template for Wales. Even today, Wales should be a net exporter of energy, energy that could be sold abroad on the international electric grid for profit, reducing electric bills for households and businesses throughout Wales. The programme would provide long-term jobs for Welshmen ande women, and attract or retain engineers, technicians, and other professionals to Wales. The key to this however is far more home rule for Wales, and perhaps independence.
You ask what the point of Plaid is; well Plaid provides a home for those who have the best interests of Wales at heart, and who look for solutions to the challenges facing Wales from a distinctly Wales point of view.
Some of the comments are straying away from the main point of the original article, and into more of a debate about the pros and cons of independence for Wales. That’s not a debate that I want to avoid – indeed, there are a number of posts on my own blog in which I have directly addressed those arguments – but I’m really going to concentrate in this response on the points which do arise directly from the original article.
David Llewellyn: “I am respectfully unconvinced with your statement that nationality is not central to the debate of aspirational statehood for Wales. I believe that it is the opposite, that the self-identification of “Welsh ethnicity” (regardless of and separate from language) as revealed in the survey is central to that question. However, I do recognize that there are exceptions”.
I’m not sure that we’re that far apart here. Certainly, for some people, identity is central to their politics, but the fact that there are any exceptions at all sems to me to confirm that basic point that there is no necessary connection between the two. Discussing the constitutional issues as though there were a dependency is an exclusive, rather than an inclusive, approach; it is an approach which almost forces people to confront and deal with the nationality question before engaging with the question of how Wales should be governed. And that is an unnecessary pre-condition.
“I think a significant issue facing Plaid quite frankly is that these issues (Independence and nationality) dominate the party. Most people want to know how kitchen table concerns like employment, healthcare, and education. How would Plaid policies affect those concerns?”
Actually, no they don’t. We spend far more time debating the other issues you mention, although it certainly is true that we believe that the best way of addressing those issues is through having more control over them here in Wales.
Len Gibbs: I understand the way some people feel about the linguistic divide – as one who has learned Welsh, I’d like to think that I understand the different perspectives. Most of my family are monoglot English speakers; but I don’t regard them as being any the less Welsh for that. And I agree that economics is central to any debate about futures. (But the example you chose is a poor one; not because you’re necessarily wrong to question the priority given to the North-South air link, but because even if you’re right, one poor decision – or even a series of poor decisions – by the Welsh government of the day does not invalidate the case for self-government. If it did, then poor decisions by the government of the day in London would equally invalidate the case for the union). “Nats are nuts” is a nice piece of sloganising, but I think we can discuss issues in a more comradely form than that.
David Phillips: “Building a sense of nationality -> Plaid Cymru -> Independence for Wales”. Where to start? Lord Cledwyn says something, so it must be so, and therefore the corollary is also true? In a way, your response neatly sums up the fear which many in the Labour Party have often shown when it comes to questions of nationality. That has reflected itself in an uncertainty and lack of confidence about Wales, and in some cases, a reluctance to support and grow Welsh-medium education, despite parental demand, in case it turned out more nationalists. It’s an unnecessary and ungrounded fear. Despite all the growth in national identity and feeling, and all the increases in Welsh-medium education, the proportion of the populace supporting Plaid’s constitutional aims remains resolutely around the 12 – 15% mark. There is no need to suppress Welsh national feeling to engage in – or even win – the argument about Independence.
John Tyler: There is much that I could say, but it would be straying too far from the point of the original article, so I’ll save it for another debate in the future. Just one small point on your “Plaid nationalists that would sunder the union and create a republic for their narrow political objectives”. The reason we want to see an independent Wales (and, just by the way, Plaid’s aims do not talk about a republic, although that’s certainly what I would like) is because we believe it’s the best way to address the bread and butter issues.
“…questions of nationality. That has reflected itself in an uncertainty and lack of confidence about Wales..”
In truth though this does appear to be almost an exclusively Plaid preoccupation, after all, if your party was relaxed about the idea of “Wales” in the UK, you would focus your energies far more on real world, “bread and butter issues” which are the concerns of the vast majority of families the length of the country.
Plaid’s mega problem is that it has to keep creating difference with “others” and to look inwards in order to have any credible currency going forward. In a global economy we should be looking outwards and co-operating with others, rather than always trying to contrast Wales with England and frantically searching for some contrived contemporary grievance laced with 700 years of history.
And so, in all this backward-looking Plaid narrative, where is the creativity, the innovation, the internationalist, the co-operative spirit, much needed if Wales is to thrive in the future?
I have to agree with John Dixon on this – we are veering a little off-topic. Speaking personally, I think his argument for decoupling the discussion of what it means to be Welsh from what constitutional settlement Wales ought to have is an interesting and novel one that deserves exploration.
It would be a shame if this thread turned into a rehearsal of what are now very familiar arguments about whether nationalism per se thrives by creating and sustaining tribal loyalties and, if so, how suitable this is to the modern world. That’s a topic worth going over again, but perhaps at a different time?
John,
Hopefully to remain within the scope of the article…
And I also hoped that I didn’t appear to have used the language issue in anyway as an argument against, for although I am decidedly, and by choice, monoglot I have too many family and friends who are Welsh speaking to be anything other than supportive of those who speak the language. And I also do not regard either language as a definer or bar to national identity. Wales has to many origins to be divisive on one issue and because, after all the vagaries of history, there is surprisingly a identity of being Welsh by the majority of the people. How that Welshness is expressed politically is a matter of judgment. Wales could be wholly monoglot and decide to exit the UK. It has a sufficient geographial and cultural distinctiveness to make that choice. But the final factor in any such move by a mixed linguistic nation will be the economy. And that I see as the main difficulty with Plaid. There is a case for a democratic management of expenditure spent within Wales – not even True Wales is advocating a return to 1997 but advocates a less centralised form of devolution. But intrinsically Plaid wishes to go beyond that. Adam Price sees a twenty year period to exit the UK. So the issue becomes a simple matter. Can we afford to break with the UK? You are going to have to do a lot of convincing to prove that we can. So at this stage, and forgive me for the slogan, I used to write advertising blurb, I think on this issue ‘nats are nuts’. Prove me wrong.
Adam…I don’t think it is possible to divorce the issue’ of ‘culture’ and identity from the political argument. If there wasn’t a linguistic divide then the aims of Plaid and/or the Lib Dems would be lesser issues. The fact is there is a cultural issue and for some it is of great importance. If it could be proven that by exiting the UK we would be better off by £3,030 per person then the case would be easier. But at the present exiting the UK could cost £3,030 per person. The difficulty is that the move is driven by a cultural awareness and an often made statement that national identity is of greater importance than money! Can I be forgiven thinking that ‘nats are nuts’. If the problem of improving the economy can be positively resolved, who knows, I might think the ‘nats have nounce’.
Following up Adam’s point, I’m not sure that John Dixon’s article is particularly novel. In fact it seems to be a reworking of the standard line in Plaid, which is the promotion of a certain line in “civic” nationalism. The idea within Plaid is that concepts of nationality can be decoupled from ethnicity completely, and that the (Welsh) civic nationalist state would be blind to ethnicity/language and therefore ‘tolerant’.
This argument is of course very attractive in many ways, and Plaid are sincere, I’m sure, in pushing it.
However this thesis also has its weaknesses.
In pushing for ‘civic’ nationalism, Plaid purports to be ‘blind’ to ethnic and linguistic differences. But the problem is that some language and ethnic identities in Wales are stronger than others. Being ‘blind’ to ‘identity’ can mean taking a sort of 19th century liberal laissez-faire attitude towards things (i.e. strongest wins). Is it a coincidence that Plaid’s shift towards ‘identity-free’ nationalism has occurred at the same time as a ‘cooling’ of its support for the Welsh language? Given that the Welsh language is a minority language, is this necessarily a good thing?
Historically Welsh-speakers have been more supportive of a Welsh State than other groups because they have been persuaded that it would grant them ‘rights’ denied to them by the British State. In this sense, statehood for Wales is attached to identity, at least for some in the population.
I suggest Plaid tread carefully here. It is enough to say that a Welsh State will create citizens who are equal.Creating a ‘civic’ State with ‘equal’ citizens does not mean denying ethnic and/or linguistic identities. I’ll give one very simple example. In a polity (independent Wales) in which 20-25% speak a minority language, there would have to be more language legislation in order to ensure linguistic equality for citizens.
Taking ‘nationality out of nationalism’ is of course a seemingly appealing notion, especially for a nationalist party that wishes to expand its electoral base. It mirrors other attempts at de-politicising the inherently political. Tony Blair managed to take Labour out of the Labour party, and Cameron is attempting the equivalent with the Tories. Some questions relating to culture and identity cannot be taken out of nationalism. I want to know where a party stands in relation to educational policy, language rights, multiculturalism. Politics is about priorities. Before voting for any party I want to know what their priorities are going to be, and when that relates to cultural issues we’re inevitably in the realm of identity politics. Culture / Identity / Nationality – it is around this cluster of keywords that Plaid should be able to stake its distinctiveness. A modern, civic, nationalist party abandons that ground at its peril, for that’s precisely where the far right will move in.
An interesting read. Whilst we would come to different conclusions, I agree with the notion that minimising (on both sides) the emotive identity-politics and maximising the hard-headed logic in the debate on our governance is healthy and productive.