Self-determination is a right

Tweet

According to international law, all nations have the right to decide for themselves whether, and to what extent, they should exercise sovereignty directly, share that sovereignty with others, or even completely subsume themselves in another entity.  The ‘right’ to self-determination does not mandate any nation to use that right in any particular way.

But international law does not attempt to define what a ‘nation’ actually is.  That’s no surprise; many of those of us who have thought long and hard about what constitutes a ‘nation’ would also struggle to provide a clear, unambiguous, and objective definition.  What is clear, however, is that whatever a ‘nation’ is, it has the right to determine its own status in the world without external compulsion or interference.

In posting today about the possible attempt by the UK Government to hi-jack the independence referendum in Scotland, Peter Black makes the sweeping statement that “Scotland is not in a position to decide its own fate”.  And insisting, as he does, that “the consent of the rest of the United Kingdom will be necessary for any change” runs directly counter to the principle that self-determination can be exercised without external interference.

It seems that the Lib Dems either don’t accept international law, or else don’t agree that Scotland is a nation.  I can’t see any other rationale for making such statements.  Worse, the statements seem to be based on the highly illiberal premise that sovereignty belongs to the centre rather than the people.

There are arguments both for and against independence, whether we’re talking about Scotland or Wales.  And it is perfectly proper that people put those arguments to the people of Scotland in advance of their referendum, so that the people have the opportunity to make an informed decision on their own future.  But arguing that they have no right to make their own decision, or trying to take control of the referendum process is not only wrong, it’s also likely to be self-defeating.

More than semantics

Tweet

The I-word was the subject of much debate within Plaid, over decades, before it was finally adopted as policy.  Prior to that, the approved phrase was ‘full national status’, a phrase coined by Phil Williams because it meant the same thing, but avoided using the dreaded word.

I always felt that the objection to the I-word was more a case of semantics than of substance.  It was long clear – well, it was clear until about 2000 anyway – that Plaid’s aim was to achieve the same sort of status in the world for Wales as that enjoyed by other free nations, such as Ireland, Denmark etc., but the argument was that none of these countries were really and truly independent, they were all interdependent.  ‘Independence’ was not therefore a wholly accurate description.

It’s a good point, and one with which I entirely agree at an intellectual level.  The problem was that the common usage and understanding of the word ‘Independence’ is precisely that state of freedom enjoyed by countries such as Ireland and Denmark, and trying to avoid using the word that citizens of those countries would naturally use ended up looking shifty and dishonest.

If there’s one thing that Dafydd Elis-Thomas has always liked, it’s being controversial.  If he can upset a few, or even a lot of, members of his own party in the process, so much the better.  I don’t doubt for one moment that his comment that Wales will ‘never’ be independent will do both of those things. 

The question, though, is what does he actually mean?  Is he making a substantive point, or is he merely playing at semantics?  If he is simply restating that long-standing intellectual objection to the use of a particular word, then he’s saying nothing at all new, just re-opening a debate which was over and done with years ago.  And people would be getting upset and annoyed over nothing more than a bad attack of semantics.

But this looks like more than semantics to me.  It sounds like a declaration of his intent to continue along the path trodden by Ieuan Wyn Jones, of turning Plaid Cymru into a post-nationalist social democratic party which seeks further gradual devolution with no clear defined end-point. 

There’s nothing at all wrong with having such a party in Wales; there’s a clear rôle for such thinking.  But we already have at least one such party – and arguably up to three of them.  What does another one add?

Independence

Tweet Adam Price makes quite a splash today with his story about the Independence Initiative. Adam also made very similar points in his article in Golwg last week, which is posted on his website.

I've said before that I'm personally not in the least uncomfortable with arguing for Welsh Independence, so Adam's comments certainly meet with approval here. But it is something that we've not paid enough attention to in recent years, a point which Adam makes well.

In fact, Adam brought a range of exciting proposals for future campaigning work to the last meeting of the NEC, and got an enthusiastic response to everything that he said (but no, I'm not going to reveal it all here), including his proposed Independence Initiative. So I was more than a little surprised at the suggestion in the Western Mail's report that "some in the party's hierarchy are likely to see it as an unwelcome distraction". Is there another party hierarchy outside the National Executive of which I remain blissfully unaware, or is this just trying to suggest dissent where there is none?

I've never understood why anyone in Plaid would be in the least afraid to argue for our vision for our nation – after all, the fact that we have such a vision is probably the one single thing which most marks us out as being different from the rest.