Protecting the Union

Tweet David Melding nailed his colours to the mast a couple of weeks ago by advocating a federal constitution for the UK. It's a bold and radical step for a Tory to take, given that he must surely understand how far out of step he is with the majority of his own party's members. Even bolder, in my view, was the pretty explicit recognition that 'sovereignty' belongs, ultimately to the people, not to the monarch. This is a much more radical step; but it goes a long way towards bridging the comprehension gap between 'unionists' and 'nationalists' in the Welsh context.

On my understanding of the (unwritten) UK constitution, 'sovereignty' flows from God to the monarch, whose distant ancestors graciously (or under force of arms, depending on viewpoint) delegated most of the monarch's power to Parliament to govern the monarch's 'subjects'. And Parliament then has an absolute right to choose to delegate (or devolve) that power, or not (subject always to Royal Assent, of course).

For me, 'sovereignty' belongs to all of us as citizens; it is for us to determine how much of it we allow any body to exercise. It follows that self-government for Wales is ours as of right, any time the majority of us choose it, and no parliament has the right to deny it if that is what we choose. Melding is not the first 'unionist' to recognise the validity of that viewpoint; but most others seem reluctant to follow that path.

The significance of that alternative approach to 'sovereignty' is both simple and fundamental. Accepting that it's for the people to choose means that the debate about the future of Wales can focus where it should be - on why people should make one choice or the other, rather than on axiomatic statements from both sides which presuppose that one unit is the 'right' one now and for all time.

I start from an acceptance that we are where we are as a result of history; and in recent centuries the peoples of these islands have enjoyed a great deal of common history. Families stretching across what are currently 'internal' borders is a very common situation. Nobody with a name like Dixon is going to claim to be pure-bred Welsh; like many, or even most, other people in Wales, I have family and other connections in many other parts of the UK.

Whatever future Wales chooses for itself, I would expect that the bonds of friendship and family across these islands would continue in a close working relationship. But are those bonds, in themselves, sufficient reason to maintain the 'union' between Wales and England, as some seem to suggest? Because, in whatever terms it is actually expressed, that seems to be one of the key arguments of some of those who wish to retain the current relationship.

I can understand how some take the view that those recent centuries of a degree of common history have turned us into a single 'British' nation, just as I can understand how others see the retention of some key differences as an argument that Wales remains a distinctive nation. But I don't think either interpretation is enough, in itself, to determine the basis on which we establish governmental arrangements.

If you strip out that axiomatic approach to determining future governance arrangements, then what remains? Arguments about financial means, certainly; arguments about democracy and localisation as well. These are largely pragmatic arguments about what's best and what will serve the people. I have no problem with the idea of sharing, or pooling sovereignty; if I did, I couldn't honestly argue for Wales being a full member of the EU.

Speaking personally, I wouldn't even rule out the idea that there might be some functions best performed jointly between the nations of these islands, if there was a sound basis for so doing, although I'd argue that the governing arrangements for such co-operation need to be designed around the objectives rather than seen as simply a continuation of the UK.

What I don't understand is the basis for the continuation of 'the union' in the eyes of those who place such stress on it. In many cases, it seems to be based primarily on an emotional attachment to a particular arrangement – precisely the criticism which has so often been thrown at those of us who take an alternative view.