Pigs and pokes

Tweet

An article on Nation.Cymru yesterday argued that independentistas who argue for a form of independence which involves remaining in the EU are in danger of alienating potential supporters who also support Brexit.  Put in such stark terms, the statement is unchallengeable; advocacy of a form of independence which is in any way predicated upon continued membership of the EU will undoubtedly prove unattractive to those who see the EU as some sort of evil foreign empire, and (in theory at least) it should be easier to gain a majority for independence if any and all such preconditions are removed.  Such an approach is not without its problems though.  Surely one of the lessons of the Brexit saga is that gaining a majority for a broad concept which can be interpreted in different ways by different people may be easier than getting a majority for a more specific proposal, but it merely kicks the can down the road.  It can actually end up making it harder, not easier, to define the ultimate destination, since it leaves everyone expecting ‘their’ version of the outcome to be delivered.

‘Independence’ will happen in a context, and that context will affect the meaning of the word ‘independence’ itself.  There is no absolute, context-free version of independence available to us and pretending there is in order to put together a majority in favour is misleading people.  As things stand today, there are three obvious potential contexts – and therefore meanings – of independence for Wales:

1.    Independence within the EU whilst the rest of the UK (essentially, England) also remains in the EU

2.    Independence within the EU whilst England is outside the EU

3.    Independence outside the EU with England also outside the EU.

In the first case, Wales would have the same degree of ‘independence’ as any other EU member state.  The same would also be true in the second case, but there would be a requirement for a customs and regulatory border between Wales and England.  And in the third case, our economy would inevitably be bound tightly to that of England; and Wales would, in effect, be bound to follow the English regulatory regime.  In theory, all of those are ‘independence’ as it is understood in the modern world.  The argument of Nation.Cymru is effectively that, if the concept is kept vague enough, supporters of all three can come together and vote for the concept, and that (to the extent that the choice would actually be in our own hands anyway) we only need to choose between them after the event.

But here’s the thing: whilst I would vote enthusiastically for the first, I’m not at all certain that I could vote for the second, and for establishing customs posts along the Welsh border, and nor am I convinced that a majority for such a proposal is attainable.  I’m not at all certain that the third is better than merely expanding the scope of devolution.  If a committed independentista like myself is doubtful, what chance persuading a majority?  Worse still – whilst leaving the nature of the result open to interpretation might well attract some voters, it could also put others off.

I’ve argued often enough in the past that asking independentistas to provide a detailed picture of a post-independence Wales is a silly question, because it depends on what sort of government we then elect and what policies that government follows.  That is not the same, though, as failing to define what we mean by independence and the context in which it happens, because if we don’t do that, we’re asking people to buy a pig in a poke.  And the last three years have shown us what can happen then.