Bonds, scrutiny, and trust

Tweet

As is becoming increasingly common, many of the letters in today’s Western Mail focus on the upcoming referendum.  Many of the ‘anti’ letters rehearse the same old arguments, with the mythical lack of scrutiny being one of their favourites.  Indeed, I almost gave up on the first letter today, since almost every point made seemed to be a variation of the scrutiny theme.

Every time that I hear the ‘scrutiny’ argument, the counter thought that comes to mind is a very simple one – “Why does our Assembly so desperately need more scrutiny than the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Scottish Parliament, both of which have far more powers to start with?”.

I’m glad that I stuck with the letter to the end, because for the very first time that I can recall – in the author’s point 10 – we have an attempt by an opponent to articulate a reason for treating Wales differently.  In his words, “Wales enjoys a unique bond with England. This is not shared to the same degree by the other devolved nations in the UK”.

It doesn’t necessarily follow, of course – but I did wonder whether the same unarticulated reason lies behind the thinking of others.  It’s the sort of thing that doesn’t need to be articulated by those who think that way – because it’s so obvious as to be second nature.  In the same way, the counter view – that it’s simply a product of a longer period of integration – also doesn’t need to be stated – because that’s also obvious.

But failing to articulate such basic assumptions is one of the reasons that communication and debate fail – because people simply don’t understand ‘where others are coming from’.  And such lack of understanding means that the arguments are phrased in terms which are simply not comprehended by the ‘other side’.

There’s a certain irony in the argument, in a way.  It’s one of life’s mysteries that the Celtic nation which has most effectively retained a different linguistic identity for longest is also the one closest to, and most closely integrated with, England.  And therein, I suspect, lies at least part of the reassuring counter argument – taking more responsibility for making our own decisions on a range of issues, just like retaining a strong national identity, doesn’t mean a weakening of the relationships with our neighbour, it’s simply a change of the structure within those relationships exist.

At another level, though, accepting that the bond between Wales and England is particularly strong for historical reasons, why does that bond need to be expressed in a way which requires the predominantly English legislature to exercise ‘scrutiny’ over the Welsh legislature?  It seems to be a complete non-sequitur to me – indeed, one could almost stand it on its head, and ask, “Should not the very strength of the bond make it easier to develop a level of trust in the Welsh legislature?”.