In a curiously contradictory article
on Nation.Cymru yesterday, Labour MS Mike Hedges started off asserting very strongly
that Wales is neither too small nor too poor to be independent before launching
into a list of reasons why we can’t afford it. We're too poor and we can't afford it sound remarkably similar propositions to me. Those reasons are all based, naturally,
on a set of assumptions that most independentistas would challenge, but
his underlying point that those supporting independence should produce some
sort of budget showing how independence would work is not entirely without
merit. Working out what it actually means, though, is a lot more complex: as is
usual from those making such a demand, it seems to start from an assumption
that independence would happen tomorrow and people should understand the implications
of that before voting.
In truth, of course, independence will not happen tomorrow.
There will be no referendum on the question unless and until there is a
majority in the Senedd in favour of holding one (and, as Scotland has shown,
even that doesn’t guarantee one). None of the polls for next May’s Senedd election
suggest such an outcome, and even if they did, the largest party in favour has,
rather strangely, already ruled out holding one for at least four years. So, the
earliest that a Welsh government will even start a process of trying to hold a referendum
is 2030, and the earliest date for a referendum is perhaps a year or two after
securing agreement – optimistically around 2032. Assuming a positive vote,
there would then need to be a period during which negotiations on the details
take place – not just with the government of the soon to be ex-UK, but also
with international organisations. There would also need to be a period during
which the organisations, institutions and processes of an independent Welsh
government were created – tax collectors, for instance. Some will see this as
unduly pessimistic on my part, but I can see that interim period lasting for
perhaps 5 years, meaning that independence would be in or around 2037. But a vote
for independence is a vote for a different future, and the reality is that
change will take some time even after that. So, while Hedges has a point in
saying that people voting (in say 2032) should know what they are voting for, what
they need is not an independence budget for 2026, it’s a budget for an independent
Wales in around 2042. And for the sake of a decent comparison of alternatives,
they need to be able to compare that directly with a budget for continued
participation in the UK in 2042.
The problems in providing that comparison are large
and obvious; both sets of figures would be based on a huge range of
assumptions, all of which would be challenged by the ‘other’ side. It is, of
course, possible for any independentista to produce something of an indicative
budget for a future independent Wales without specifying to which year it would
apply. It would take an amount of work and would be subject to the same caveats
around the assumptions made. It would not, though, be a budget for ‘independence’;
it would be a budget for the sort of independence favoured by those drawing up
the budget. As one obvious example, some independentistas favour
continuing to use sterling; others favour a new Welsh currency. The difference
between the two in terms of the implications for decisions by the Welsh
government is enormous.
The point is that what makes the difference isn’t independence
as such. Independence isn’t the magic bullet that some supporters would like it
to be, nor is it the millstone which opponents claim it would be; it’s merely
an enabler which can be used in a variety of ways. When looking at the finances
of a future Wales, what matters is what sort of Wales we want to see. Instead
of making impossible demands for clarity and precision from those who support independence,
opponents should be setting out how the union will solve, rather than
perpetuate, Wales poor economic performance. Given their abject failure to
date, it’s easy to understand why they don’t do that.
Posts
2 comments:
Diolch, Borthlas for something we used to hear about, but never actually see. A route-map to Indy. It is a neat trick to require Hedges & Co make the case for the Union, and to get Indy by default, but we know it won’t work. Indy is uphill and hard and we need that route-map. I absolutely agree with your timescale.
I agree also as to the importance of the preparatory work. Yes, there will need to be a budget which will indeed be a budget for the sort of independence favoured by those drawing up the budget. I can quite see that you might favour a budget for Indy in terms different to mine. Difference of opinion, eh? In the present climate in Wales the wrong opinion will not give rise to a rational debate, it’ll get you cancelled.
But not true of Borthlas, so lets keep going. Its not just about the Budget. You mention “negotiations on the details”. Absolutely. Here is my complaint. Independistas have been lazy and some of them are freeloaders. The freeloaders are the feminists and climate-change extremists who are not happy to keep their beliefs but also just join the team. No, they must dominate the debate and take over an entire movement, because it is small and gullible enough to allow this. Luckily, they are losing their stranglehold now. Note, like most people, I want to protect women and the environment. But I also want something else = Indy and not to see it pushed back decades and to a time when I might not live to see it. Angry? I have the right to be.
As for the lazy ones, they are letting my country down. Scotland had done much more prep for Indy than Wales has. But they fluffed the currency issue in 2014 because they did not meet the challenge it presented. Sadly Wales is way behind, on the currency and many other questions of nation-building. The standard was set (in English) by American founding fathers and by the Irish. They all did their homework, and trudged and battled the hard yards. Plus of course we had AUS, NZ, S.Africa, India and others. All except the Americans used the Dominion Status route, which is all about nation-building and only then taking the final leap to Indy. Plaid did not do the prep for decades, but seems to be stirring now, diolch i’r drefn.
Wales needs a group which specialises on the Welsh Constitution. Just draft a Constitution and an enabling Act for Westminster, no more. Scotland drafted an Act but dodged doing a Constitution. All neutral in terms of where Borthlas and I might differ. We’re building the stage, not writing the play. FirstDominion.wales will organise this process because no-one else is. You heard it here first.
"It is a neat trick to require Hedges & Co make the case for the Union, and to get Indy by default" It wasn't intended to be a neat trick nor to get independence by default! It was, rather, an attempt to point out that a demand for people to know what independence means before they vote to it necessarily implies an ability to then make a comparison between independence and non-independence. It's a leap of imagination which the Hedgeses of this world seem incapable of comprehending. But here's the truth, and it's one on which I suspect we'd agree: the unionist side has no plan for the future of Wales other than to carry on lagging behind and being relatively poorer. If they thought it through, they'd be terrified of being forced to spell out their vision for Wales 2042. The emperor's clothes and all that.
"The freeloaders are the feminists and climate-change extremists who are not happy to keep their beliefs but also just join the team." A little controversial, to say the least. The question is - and I'll admit it's one I've struggled with on occasions - should a pro-independence party be one which has one and only one aim, to gain independence, or does that party need to be ready to assume leadership of the nation in a pre-independence state as part of the struggle to bring about that independence? The former can avoid having detailed policies on almost everything, but the second needs to be able to present a coherent programme for (non-independent) government. If we look at the Basque country, or Catalonia, for example, the 'normal' situation is one in which there are multiple independence parties with very different views on detailed policies. They are able to collaborate on constitutional issues (well, some of the time at least!) whilst disagreeing vociferously on, say, economic or social policy. The problem in Wales is a voting system which encourages all pro-independence voters to support one party, and the result of that is that those differences of opinion become internalised within that party rather than a subject of debate between parties. The result is that people like you and I, who can agree on some issues but not on others, often ended up in a somewhat uneasy relationship which couldn't always be resolved by reverting to the common ground. Maybe the new voting system for the Senedd (although I'd still prefer STV) will, in time, facilitate the process of transferring those differences from intra-party to inter-party status. Time will tell.
Post a Comment