A few days ago, Martin Shipton of the
Western Mail wrote an article
on Independence which highlighted some of the very real issues facing independentistas in Wales in normalising
the question. Why is it that, of all the
nations which have sought and gained their independence over the decades, as he
puts it, “Not once did I come across an
example of “buyer’s remorse”, where the argument was put that such-and-such a
country would have been better off if it had remained a British colony because
it couldn’t afford to be independent” and that “the notion that independence couldn’t be afforded only cropped up
years later in the context of Wales”? It’s a really good point to be making: what is it about Wales which
makes this an issue in a way which it has never been for anyone else?
Part of the answer to that is, as he says,
that “Many centuries of colonisation –
both physical and mental – have resulted in a nation where most people have
become estranged from the natural desire to govern themselves”, and that “The claim that Wales could not afford to
function as an independent state is deeply embedded.” These are all words which could have flowed
from the keyboard of many an independentista.
And then he went and spoiled it by saying that
“Three years ago Cardiff University’s
Wales Governance Centre published a report showing that an independent Wales
would have a budget deficit of £15bn.”
Whether this is a deliberate attempt to undermine a line of argument which
was going so well, or whether it is a complete failure to understand the
figures produced by the academics is a question I can’t answer; that the
statement is complete nonsense is unquestionably true. As the report itself made clear, it was not
in any way an attempt to analyse the economics of an independent Wales, merely
research into the economic situation of Wales as things currently stand within
the unitary British state. It was a
report looking at what had happened in one scenario, not at what might happen
in another – and the authors made that entirely clear at the time.
Now some might try and argue that it must
be taken as the starting point anyway; if Wales were to become independent tomorrow,
those figures are where we currently stand.
But Wales isn’t going to become independent tomorrow; if (or hopefully,
when) Wales gains her independence it will be part of a process in which the context
and the policy will change. If they don’t,
then it’s not independence. To argue that
we can’t afford independence because we can’t exactly replicate all current
expenditure and taxation arrangements is to argue against independence itself.
One of the reasons why people in Wales believe
that affordability is an issue is because people keep telling them so. And none more so than a media which either
fails to understand – or else deliberately misinterprets – the numbers.
Posts
5 comments:
The issue I have in all of this 'independence' talk is that we always seem to claim that somehow in the past we were once a civilised, independent country. I don't think we were, and certainly not in territorial size as currently constituted.
Rather, I'd like to see us calling for an independent Wales in the same way people in London call for that city to become an independent 'city state'. It's a new thing, a new idea, a new constellation based upon the will of a defined group of people in a distinct territorial location.
If we can start to talk about independence in these terms we might well have a chance. To keep banging on about it in terms of historical fantasies and unwanted assimilation is complete nonsense.
Thank God for the English, just look at how much they have done for us over the centuries. But now we've been civilised, now we're used to living with democracy and law and order, now we can all speak at least one common language, it might well be time to ask our people if there is indeed an appetite to start walking down a path towards independence, albeit perhaps not for all of Wales as currently territorially defined.
I find myself wondering whether you actually believe anything you write - this looks more like the product of a fevered imagination than a serious contribution.
"...we always seem to claim that somehow in the past we were once a civilised, independent country" Who does? I certainly don't. Creating an imaginary straw man to knock down is an attempt to put words into people's mouths.
"I don't think we were, and certainly not in territorial size as currently constituted" And nor do I - but I don't understand why you or anyone else would think that that matters. It's irrelevant.
"...based upon the will of a defined group of people in a distinct territorial location." What makes you think that that isn't exactly what independentistas want? At present, that will does not exist (for London nor for Wales), but creating that will is precisely what any campaign for independence involves.
"To keep banging on about it in terms of historical fantasies and unwanted assimilation is complete nonsense." So who do you think is dealing in historical fantasies? Nations are not static or immutable; they change and develop over time. What happened in the past - or rather people's understanding of what happened in the past which is not at all the same thing - may well contribute to their individual conception of their national identity, but national identity is necessarily much more complex than that and evolves in different ways over time. You cannot impose your definition of what independentistas believe on us any more than I can impose my definition of nationality on you. I don't want to do the latter - I don't understand why you're so keen to do the former.
"Thank God for the English, just look at how much they have done for us over the centuries. But now we've been civilised, now we're used to living with democracy and law and order, now we can all speak at least one common language" I don't know what you've been taking, but I'd suggest a lower dose in future.
JD, There really isn't that much that separates our thinking.
I'd like to meet you one of these days. We might well find we have much in common, Welsh language aside.
The £15bn figure was a highly important contribution to the debate in Wales when it came out.
It was a good stab at what had been a very elusive target, which had been obscured for political reasons. It was reasonably independent ie from a University. It was a breath of fresh air. A similar exercise would be repeated annually so there would be a process of refining "not an event".
I was in the room when they announced it. There was a palpable feeling of cold-water being poured on all kinds of expectations. But, when you thought about it, there was nowhere to go but up.
I realise that Keynesians and others don't worry overmuch about deficits. Countries are not households. Even so, the £15bn had the great merit of pointing out the destination, that at some point Wales would have to cover the deficit, or live with not covering it. A year or two later we have the Wales Revenue Authority, an embryo from which a Welsh Treasury might grow. Then you can think about the answers
- indigenous growth
- indigenous expenditure cuts eg to Third Sector
- rejigging who receives VAT raised in Wales, transforms the figure
etc etc
What has worried me is that Plaid, who should have drawn energy from this new exercise, did not appear to do so. Noone else is going to, after all. An independent Wales depends on how Wales ie Plaid deal with this useful and clear target. Still hope, though
Jonathan,
For clarity - I was in no way criticising the report itself. It was an interesting and useful piece of research into the financial situation of Wales within the UK, and I hope that it will be repeated regularly. It can and should be a helpful input to the devolved administration's taxation and expenditure policies. My criticism is of the way that some have sought to use it to argue that it tells us anything at all about the affordability of independence. It does not, and its authors made that entirely clear at the time.
Post a Comment