That, according
to the 1536 Act, is the status of Wales in relation to England. It’s pretty clear and unambiguous; and unlike
some more recent acts, there’s no ‘sunset clause’ in this one.
There was
another, unrelated, story a few days ago about a list of laws which the UK
Government was planning to repeal. They
inadvertently included an act making it a crime to even imagine replacing the
monarchy. But the Windsors can sleep
soundly; the government realised its mistake and removed that act from the
list. Imagining such an unthinkable
thing will continue to be considered by the law to be an act of treason.
I don’t expect,
however, to be writing my next post from the Tower. The UK’s unwritten constitution has a curious
ability to be able to ignore itself whenever it is convenient so to do. Nothing, however deeply etched into the
fabric of the law, has the timelessness intended by those who thought that
their power was greater than it was at the time that they made these laws.
When it comes
to the question of Welsh independence as well, the government knows that
relying on what a king decreed almost half a millennium ago to simply deny the right
of the people to express an alternative will would be an utterly self-defeating
approach. There may well be little
demand for such a step in Wales at present, but simply outlawing those who
argue otherwise would be counter-productive.
The same is true
when it comes to the union between England (including Wales) and Scotland. That union, too, was intended to be
indissoluble and to last for ever. But relying
on the intentions and the wording of the acts of union to prevent the Scots
from even having the choice would be foolhardy in the extreme.
And yet… Why are those unionists who recognise the
sheer folly of such a legalistic approach when applied directly within the UK
so content to rely on exactly the same argument by proxy? How many times have we heard them arguing
that Scotland has no chance of EU membership because the Spanish Government,
faced with its own ‘internal’ independence movements, will never allow it?
As we have seen
over the last week or so, Spain is, indeed, determined to block any attempt at
holding an independence referendum in Cataluña, and is relying on the
indissoluble and everlasting character of the wording of the Spanish constitution
as its justification. Far from Spain’s
stance vindicating the position of UK unionists, as they seem to think, this
actually means that they are simply relying partly on the same sort of argument
themselves – an argument that they would never dare to make directly.
I don’t know
whether the Catalans will eventually vote for independence or not; what I do
know is that it will not be the wording of laws or constitutions that
ultimately stops them. Trech gwlad nag
arglwydd - the will of the people is ultimately stronger than any law, and that’s
as true in Wales as it is in Cataluña or Scotland.
The issue we
face – whether unionists or nationalists – is about persuading the people to
one view or another, not about what any laws, ancient or modern, might say. Especially not by proxy.
2 comments:
'The issue we face ..... is about persuading the people to one view or another ....', quite so! But such democracy does not come without a cost.
The nationalists need to recognise this, as do the unionists. Neither Wales nor Scotland will ever again benefit from any major public investment programmes relating to matters of national security, including healthcare and citizen management.
Or not so long as they retain the rightful option to vote on staying within or leaving the Union.
In the end, democracy necessitates that everyone loses!
Hear! Hear! - Good post
Post a Comment