Tuesday 12 February 2013

Independence sometime

In years gone by, I used to go on the occasional protest march, against a variety of different sins and evils.  There was a chant which was regularly used, and which can be adapted to just about any circumstances.

“What do we want?”  “___*___“
“When do we want it?”  “Now!”
(*Insert here a pithy description of no more than three words.  The answer to the second question is always ‘now’.)
It was a useful catch-all.  Gareth Hughes has already drawn a comparison between that and Plaid’s latest statements.  It’s a useful comparison.  The message is much less straightforward and seems these days to run something like this:
“What do we want?”  “Not entirely sure at the moment – can we get back to you on that?”
“When do we want it?”  “Ooh.  Difficult one.  Not now obviously – in a decade or three perhaps?”
As slogans go it’s somewhat lacking in both immediacy and the power to inspire.
Of course, it could be just an attempt to be over nuanced.  The problem with over nuanced messages, though, is that they simply don’t work.  (I say that from experience.  I still remember Plaid’s slogan for the common market referendum in 1975 – “Europe yes; EEC no”.  It was an accurate summary of the party’s position, but a disaster in campaigning terms.)
The problem with this latest attempt at nuance, if that’s what it is, is that it’s losing the party all distinctiveness on the constitutional question.  What exactly is the difference between the two statements in each of these following pairs?
1a “Wales is too poor to be independent
1b “Wales cannot be independent until its economy has been fixed.

2a “Only continued membership of the UK can bring prosperity to Wales.
2b “We can’t leave the UK until we’re sufficiently prosperous.”
In each case the first is the line often taken by members of the unionist parties and the second seems to be Plaid’s current position.  But in each case the statements sound, in effect, remarkably similar to me. 
Not only is Plaid now sounding very like the unionist parties on this question, it’s also standing on its head the argument that I (and plenty of others) spent 40 years promoting.  Whereas in the past we argued that we would never be able to fix the Welsh economy until Wales took responsibility for all its own affairs, Plaid now seems to be arguing that we can’t take that responsibility until the economy has been fixed (and inevitably it sounds like that means ‘fixed by somebody else’).
Now in reality it was never as black-and-white as that, of course.  Independence doesn’t guarantee prosperity any more than continued union guarantees continued relative poverty (or vice versa in each case).  But I always generally believed – and still do – that it is much more likely that a Welsh government, with its focus solely on Wales, would address the economic problems better than a UK government driven by UK wide concerns.
Perhaps Plaid are really just trying to say that devolution of some further economic levers to Wales will be enough to achieve that economic turnaround without full independence, although I’m struggling to see where anyone has defined precisely which of those levers are the key ones, and how and where stopping short of full control gives ‘enough’ control.  And even the party’s current approach to fiscal devolution seems to be somewhat timid.
It’s hard to see the latest statement as anything other than a further redefinition of Plaid as a devolutionist rather than a nationalist party; and given that we’ve already got three of those, I’m not convinced that we really need a fourth.

27 comments:

Spirit of BME said...

Mr Dixon.
Hear,hear,hear!!!

maen_tramgwydd said...

Quite!

Mirrors my view exactly. Somewhat disppointing emanations from the current leadership (btw, whom I supported as best of the three, by far), but given the anxiety of losing their seats, I can understand some of the dinosaur AMs' self-serving caution.

Much more care is required when selecting candidates. Several need to be deselected.

Efrogwr said...

Timely post. I've been a Plaid member since 1997 and the party has never seemed to have its heart in independence during this period.
I guess there are two counter arguments:
1) while a firmer line appeals to the already converted, most people are not interested/afraid/against independence, so you have to focus on the economy/schoolsnhospitals to make yourself relevant and then from that base you can move forward (rather like the SNP has done).
2) the "devolutionist" parties, as you put it, would revert to British type without the pressure from Plaid.
On balance, though, I'm fed-up with "nationalism lite". Would much prefer the argument that Wales is poor because it's dependent and we need independence asap. Putting that argument strongly could help set the intellectual agenda and also have the helpful side-effect of forcing the Unionist parties to up their devolutionist game. No sign whatsoever that Plaid is capable of this or where any credible alternative nationalist party could emerge from, I'm afraid.

maen_tramgwydd said...

I forgot to add, as George Robertson once said, the purpose of devolution was, 'to kill nationalism stone dead'.

It seems to be going that way in Wales. Perhaps its time to make a more thorough comparison between the SNP's strategy and that of Plaid.

One thing is for sure, unless Plaid takes Labour to task at the ballot box, the party has little future. However, it doesn't seem to have the guts to go for the jugular. It shouldn't be that difficult. A century of Labour domination in Wales has resulted in the mess we're in. Thirteen years of Blair and Brown should have nailed it.

IWJ was too busy cosying up to the party he should have been facing up to. There are too many Plaid AMs who are of the same mind.

Anonymous said...

Independence isn't a quick fix for the economy or anything else. I don't see why anyone could or would argue with the point that "Wales is too poor", unless they were indulging in wishful thinking or fantasising. Wales doesn't generate anywhere near enough activity to cover our needs (and arguably we aren't even meeting our needs at present). We're not too small, too thick or anything like that. We are purely too poor to meet enough of our own costs. The UK is in a similar boat but Wales would be much worse. So would Scotland, if they didn't have oil and gas revenues factored in to the equation.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps its time to make a more thorough comparison between the SNP's strategy and that of Plaid."

Some people keep saying this but Wales and Scotland are different countries. I guess some obvious lessons can be learned though.

The SNP's strategy has been based on being a good left-populist government and getting into power. I suppose our problem is that Labour has basically done the same thing in Wales.

But in any case, I don't see why Plaid promoting or campaigning for independence would constitute "going for the jugular" against Labour. It would actually help Labour and drive alot of Plaid voters towards them. This has in fact already happened and it could keep happening until Carmarthen East is lost, and until Ynys Mon is also lost at the Assembly. I don't think Plaid could slip much further than that.

The party's electoral fortunes should be put above an unrealistic campaign for Welsh independence at the moment. We aren't getting any closer to independence unless Plaid does better electorally. This is a cold reality for some people to deal with though.

When Efrogwr says- " Putting that argument strongly could help set the intellectual agenda and also have the helpful side-effect of forcing the Unionist parties to up their devolutionist game."

There is a problem though, there is no intellectual agenda behind independence. There is no academic support for it. No reports setting out how it could be financed (it couldn't, by the way) or which sectors of the electorate could or would support it. It's unrealistic and off putting (for now).

The way forward, for now, is a confederal UK. The settlement Labour doesn't want by the way, but most people in Wales would. Plaid could be the confederalist party. That's the obvious next destination for nationalism, not independence.

Anonymous said...

The lessons from Scotland are 1.Campaign for independence all the time rubbish the union. 2. Have nothing to do with the Labour Party
3. The economy will only be put right when we have independence. 4. Wales books can be balanced a great deal of current government expendicture in the name of the Welsh government can be stopped. Defence, Nuclear weapons etc. Plaid will get nowhere until campaigns for a FREE WALES NOW!

John Dixon said...

Anon 18:47,

"The party's electoral fortunes should be put above an unrealistic campaign for Welsh independence at the moment. We aren't getting any closer to independence unless Plaid does better electorally."

How about if I were to say "The party's electoral fortunes should be put above an unrealistic campaign for socialism at the moment. We aren't getting any closer to socialism unless Labour does better electorally."?

That is to say, your argument sounds awfully similar to that used by the Labour Party to justify why people should continue to vote for them even if they no longer support their original aims. I suppose you could argue that it 'works' for the Labour Party... I don't see that it takes us any closer to socialism though, even if the Labour Party win on the back of it.

"[the problem is that] there is no intellectual agenda behind independence"

In the first place, I don't accept that that is true; what is true is that there is little public support - not the same thing at all. But even if it were true, you seem to be saying that rather than trying to fill the gap which you identify, the idea should be abandoned unless and until someone else fills that gap? That's a curious sort of argument for any 'nationalist' to make.

There are lots of complicated aspects to the debate, but if there's one thing of which I'm absolutely certain it is that public support for the idea of an independent Wales will not increase whilst no-one makes the case.

Anonymous said...

John, I appreciate your comments and the analogy with Labour, but my problem is with the case itself, rather than the fact nobody is making it. And this is where the intellectual aspect comes in. It is always hard to work out the issue of finances and a theoretical Welsh state, compared to Scotland where it can be worked out through GERS. But has it actually been proven that creating an independent Welsh state, except as a very gradual long term process, would not lead to a catastrophic reduction in public finances? And that Plaid Cymru quite rightly supports public expenditure and that we need investment rather than cuts at this period in time? And finally, that the Welsh nation needs nation-building before we are ready for independence.

Labour won't do nation building because it will threaten their Westminster base. Our nationalist party, Plaid, should be the main nation-building party and shouldn't surrender that ground to a lethargic and conservative "Welsh" Labour.

Anonymous said...

Anon 21:09 those are not the lessons from Scotland at all. The SNP case for independence is predicated on retaining current UK levels of expenditure and in some cases increasing them, along with maintaining a social union. The SNP also needed to get into govt in the first place, and importantly, Scotland had gone much further down the nation building road before the nation was strengthened enough for independence to be viable, realistic and not an electoral obstacle.

Aled GJ said...

I'm also concerned about this current line about being "too poor" for independence at present.It conjures up an image of a committee of the great and the good, sitting down sometime in the future, to decide whether Wales can "afford" to be independent. Has any other nation in the world ever won its independence like this??? I for one believe that Scotland will vote YES in 2014. It's not too fanciful then to think that England will vote for its own independence. In fact the promised EU vote in 2017 will to all intents and purposes be a vote for England's independence. Things are moving very quickly, and independence for Wales is not at all a side-issue as some would have you believe.

I would like to see PC's leadership talking about independence by 2020,(two rounds of elections to the Senedd). This would give us seven years to build up the necessary political and economic nation-building infrastructure for that to happen.
here.

This will allow PC to set the agenda which otherwise will be forced upon us by events elsewhere.






Glyndo said...

"there's one thing of which I'm absolutely certain it is that public support for the idea of an independent Wales will not increase whilst no-one makes the case."

Spot on

John Dixon said...

Anon 12:11,

"But has it actually been proven that creating an independent Welsh state ... would not lead to a catastrophic reduction in public finances"

No, but then neither has it been "proven" that it would. It is, in essence, unproveable either way. I don't want to avoid a discussion about economics - I've discussed that many times on this blog and will do so again - but a comment thread about something else isn't really the best place. The whole argument about 'affordability' is, in one sense, a complete red herring anyway; the case for independence has never been about economics, just as economics isn't really the argument against. Even if it could be 'proven' that an independent Wales would be a complete economic basket-case, the idea would still have some supporters; and even if it could be 'proven' that Wales would be the richest country on the planet, many of those arguing against independence as being 'unaffordable' would still be opposed; they'd just shift their grounds for objection to something else.

There is one thing, and only one thing, standing between Wales and independence, and that is that the people of Wales aren't convinced that it's a good idea in principle, even if that isn't the reason that they quote.

There are economic consequences of independence but they are unique to the situation of each individual country seeking independence, and anyone - on either side of the argument - who tells you with absolute certainty what they will be in the case of Wales is attempting to delude you, and is probably deluding him or her self.

My point in realtion to this post is a very simple one. The only way that the obstacle to independence (i.e. that the majority don't want it) can be removed is through convincing them otherwise. Telling them that they're right to be sceptical doesn't immediately strike me as the best way of doing that.

Even if one were to accept your argument that "the Welsh nation needs nation-building before we are ready for independence", telling the people of Wales what they can't do seems more likely to damage, than to build, national confidence.

Anonymous said...

Hi John. Good comments in response to mine.

I disagree with your final point. I think giving people in Wales a vision of a gradually more independent country, based on expanding and furthering devolution, would improve national self-confidence. Maybe there's a route to greater independence without that process. But i'm not convinced, and that means the public at large definitely won't be.

John Dixon said...

Anon,

I don't think we're as far apart on that as you might think. I tend to agree that "giving people in Wales a vision of a gradually more independent country, based on expanding and furthering devolution, would improve national self-confidence".

BUT:

1. I don't think it's enough in itself - the case for independence still needs to be put if opinions are to be changed in the long term. Waiting until 'somebody' decides that people are 'ready' to hear the arguments is at least a little patronising isn't it?;
2. I don't think telling us what we're not ready for, and won't be ready for in the reasonably foreseeable future is a particularly clever way of boosting confidence; and
3. It doesn't need a 'nationalist' party to put the case. Indeed, the best way of achieving gradual increments in the devolution settlement over a lengthy period would be through the Labour Party, surely?

Anonymous said...

Point 3, you are foretting the labour party and their supporters are the arch enemies of devolution, remember 79, which led to tory rule.

Anonymous said...

Thanks John, the only point i'll come back on is -

"It doesn't need a 'nationalist' party to put the case. Indeed, the best way of achieving gradual increments in the devolution settlement over a lengthy period would be through the Labour Party, surely? "

I don't know how you arrive at the conclusion. Nothing the Labour party has done has convinced me that this is the case. We need a nationalist party to campaign for the process to move ahead and to use its political power to drive devolution forward. It's not in Labour's interest to take more responsibility for Wales' affairs.

And also, we need a nationalist party to give expression to the fact that Wales is a nation and to safeguard the Welsh language & culture. Maybe that sometimes or even often involves co-operating with other parties, fine, but there needs to be a party (and we have one in Plaid) that is solely answerable to the people of Wales and that puts Wales first.

Some people even think we need more than one nationalist party, in fact! Although not me.

John Dixon said...

Anon 13:51 - gross oversimplification, bordering on tribalistic definition of enemies.

Anon 14:07,

"I don't know how you arrive at the conclusion"

Let's start with a few points which are, I think, inarguable:

1. The Labour Party contains, and has always contained, a strong strand of opinion which opposes any devolution of power to Wales.

2. The Labour Party contains, and has always contained, a strong strand of opinion which supports devolution to Wales, and which has even, albeit long ago, argued for 'home rule all round'.

3. Sometimes one strand has the upper hand; sometimes the other. The party swings between one viewpoint and the other.

4. All three devolution acts passed by parliament - 1978/9, 1997, and 2006 were passed by Labour Governments.

Then a few points which are more contentious and utterly unproveable, but which I believe to be the case:

5. The centre of gravity in political debate over the constitutional question has moved towards greater powers for Wales over the last 5 decades largely because there was, for the first four of those decades at any rate, a party committed to the idea of self-government / full national status / independence (choose whichever description you prefer - they all amount to the same thing). Without that party, the centre of gravity would have remained in a very different place.

6. The hand of the devolutionists within Labour was stengthened by the presence of an electoral threat (albeit not a huge one, but it didn't always look that way), and the ability of Labour's devolutionists to draw a clear line between what they wanted and what 'the nats' wanted.

7. Since the advent of the Assembly, Welsh politics has setled into a pattern under which Labour dominates at every election, and under which Plaid remains a potent force, but largely limited to a particular type of constituency, backed up by a regional list presence elsewhere. That pattern shows no obvious sign of cracking anytime soon (despite occasional protestations by one or other opposition party that Labour's hegemony is doomed).

8. Largely in pursuit of electoral success, the party which did so much to shift the centre of gravity is now trying itself to move back towards that centre, abandoning its traditional rôle as 'outrider' taking a more uncompromising position.

Now, you can argue with some of those points, of course - and we can agree to disagree on them. But if they're correct, then any further progress on slow, gradual devolution of further powers comes about only if the devolutionists in Labour hold the upper hand and maintain it. What is the best way of securing that, if we abandon the way in which it was done in the past? The obvious answer, to me, is from within the Labour Party, because the debate on how far and fast Wales goes from here on is becoming (or being allowed to become), by default, a debate which is essentially internal to that party.

I'm not actually suggesting that nationalists should all join the Labour Party en masse; but for some quasi-nationalists the logic seems to me to be clear. For pro-devolutionists of a vaguely social democratic disposition who will be happy to achieve some small further steps along the devolution process within the likely timescale of their remaining political lives, the place from which they would be best placed to do that, in purely practical terms, is within the Labour Party. Hence my previous statement.

It leaves a gap in Welsh politics though; I think there is still a need for someone to be putting the case for a more radical alternative for Wales, and in a shorter timescale. But I don't expect to hear that from social democratic devolutionists.

Anonymous said...

A Plaid Glyndwr has started,opposed to E U membership and seeing Plaid Cymru as party of careerists and Pro-Labour Yes men. Plaid Glyndwr claims to be totally opposed to any involvement of the U.K. government in Wales. Such a party could pinch votes from Plaid if it got any momentum going.
Plaid Cymru is leaving itself wide open to this attack. Plaid should be demanding independence "As soon as Possible" not in Twenty years time.

Anonymous said...

Some ideas here: http://www.welshindependence.net/2012/07/what-price-independence-mabon-ap-gwynfor.html

Anonymous said...

Fair comments by Mabon but they're not really "ideas". Pointing out the UK is so indebted isn't really a solution because an independent Wales' share of that debt would be appalling, compared to our GDP. He is right though to say that people need to unite to build Wales up and to gather accurate Welsh data.

Adam Higgitt said...

I find myself in the slightly unusual position of thinking this article a little hard on Plaid. The party is simply responding to the cold, hard electoral realities.

For as long as I have followed Welsh politics, independence has been the least favoured constitutional outcome of the Welsh public - and by quite a big margin, too. This was the case when devolution was off the agenda. It was the case when devolution arrived. It was the case when devolution was enhanced. And it’s the case now that Scottish independence is being discussed seriously. Constitutional change in the UK comes and goes, but the Welsh public’s reluctance to contemplate Welsh independence remains.

I know your position on this. You maintain the popularity of a given cause is no measure of its validity. I agree. But I think that something else is going on within Plaid, and has been for several years, and explains the phenomenon you describe above. When I first came into contact with Plaid activists in the mid 1990s, they all had an immutable belief that independence would, at some stage, happen. They all believed that history was on their side, and that logic, progress and all the other ascendant forces in human civilisation would eventually render the British union redundant. This belief was maintained through much of devolution’s first decade, with the constitutional ratchet only ever moving in one direction. Progress toward independence may have been slow, but it appeared sure. For a while, I also thought there was an inevitability to it all.

Now I think this mindset with Plaid has at the least been tempered by something else: a realisation that devolution is not necessarily a continuum, with the centralised British state at one end and Welsh independence at the other. I think some in Plaid now realise that a decent, workable federal structure would suit a plurality of the Welsh public just fine in the very long term. Far from more devolution making the case of independence stronger, it seems to be making the case for some kind of unionist/federal structure more commendable. To borrow a phrase, it represents in the minds of a sufficiently large block of the electorate, the best of both worlds.

The response from pro-independence types to the unpopularity of independence is to argue that this condition holds because Plaid is not out there making the case – in other words it is the timidity of Welsh nationalism that keeps independence unpopular. Perhaps, but I think this confuses antipathy for apathy. The Welsh public, in my experience, aren’t disengaged when it comes to independence, and are open to being convinced. They are implacably against this outcome, and have been for as long as anyone can remember. Does this mean Welsh nationalists should give up? Of course not. But it may explain the crisis of faith we currently see in their only political conduit.

John Dixon said...

Adam,

There is much of what you say with which I would agree, albeit I might draw some different conclusions!

I hesitate to put words into your mouth, or interpret the thoughts in your head, but part of the difference between us might be a case of holding a different perspective on what parties are ‘for’; not in the sense of policy, but in the sense of raison d’être.

Back in the mists of time, it was fairly clear that parties were ‘for’ the interests of particular social groups (social class in some cases, but not always as entirely black and white as that). With the foundation of Labour (or more accurately, perhaps, its precursors), there was overlaid a sense of 'mission', which went beyond, in some ways, merely standing for the interests of ‘the workers’. And more recently again, much more recently, parties have become primarily vehicles by which particular groups of career politicians seek this strange commodity called ‘power’. (I over-simplify, of course.)

Now for those who believe this to be the natural order of things within a political system and structures which are broadly consensual, it is entirely reasonable for any party which is promoting a view of the world at odds with that held by the electors to 'recognise political reality' it it desires electoral success. But for those who still cleave to a sense of mission, that can look like a massive departure from principle.

part 2 follows...

John Dixon said...

“For as long as I have followed Welsh politics, independence has been the least favoured constitutional outcome of the Welsh public” - longer than that, surely! But it's true, of course (and socialism, however defined, isn’t exactly flavour of the month either). But, as you say, “You maintain the popularity of a given cause is no measure of its validity.”. I do indeed. And I think that those of us who believe that there is a ‘better way’ (shorthand for any number of different viewpoints) have a duty and responsibility to argue that case, even if it isn’t popular. It’s at least arguable that much of human progress has been a result of people continuing to argue for unpopular causes until they became popular. History doesn’t make man; man makes history.

I certainly understand and relate to your view that Plaid activists "... all believed that history was on their side" (although I’m not sure that I would include the ‘all’); there has at times been something close to ‘historical determinism’ on display from some nationalists. On the other hand, it’s not entirely untrue that there is a broad stream of thought in European politics moving towards a greater degree of localisation. In sub-state nations, it often appears as nationalism; elsewhere it tends to look more like the Green movement. I think that nationalists, including myself, can be forgiven for seeing their politics at times as being simply a Welsh version of something much larger.

Whether history will end up favouring that viewpoint is yet to be seen; it’s far too soon to say. Sometimes it feels like swimming against the tide of increasing centralisation and globalisation; at others it does feel more like a broad trend in thought which will change rather more than just Wales.

”Now I think this mindset with Plaid has at the least been tempered by something else: a realisation that devolution is not necessarily a continuum, with the centralised British state at one end and Welsh independence at the other” I’m not convinced that this is as ‘recent’ as your comment implies. A few years ago, I wrote an article for WalesHome which compared Plaid to Schrödinger’s cat. The ambiguity about the constitutional objectives has always been there, right back to the founding fathers in 1925. But as long as Plaid remained a campaigning party outside the Establishment with no more than a toehold in the elected institutions, it was possible to maintain that ambiguity.

That enabled the party to continue to provide a home to a broad spectrum of opinion; from nationalist fundamentalists to those who felt that "that a decent, workable federal structure would suit a plurality of the Welsh public just fine in the very long term.", as well as those like myself for whom ‘independence’ was only ever one step in a change to a very different type of world, based on sustainability and direct shared control of the human economy. However, the progress of devolution has involved opening Schrödinger's box – and only one type of party could ever emerge at that point, even if we could never be entirely certain what that type would be before we opened the box.

Final part follows...

John Dixon said...

So, when you say that "The response from pro-independence types to the unpopularity of independence is to argue that this condition holds because Plaid is not out there making the case – in other words it is the timidity of Welsh nationalism that keeps independence unpopular", I’d have to agree that it certainly sounds very similar to what I’ve been saying at one level – which is that you don’t change opinions by not making the case.

My purpose is not to criticise that thee's anything wrong with a constitutional status short of independence, such as federalism, per se. It doesn't match my view of what the future should look like, but it's an entirely honourable view to hold. I do argue that the best way to achieve that in Wales as things stand today is from within the Labour Party, and I do argue that it leaves a vacuum in which no mainstream party is arguing the more radical viewpoint, and where all the parties sound in essence increasingly similar; the differences are of emphasis and timescale rather then direction.

Anonymous said...

We're not going to be an inch closer to an independent Wales if Plaid Cymru loses even more seats and even more ground to an increasingly "Welsh" Labour party. For alot of families I imagine the prospect of a Wales "cut off" from England is deeply depressing and unpopular. We know that about 30-40% of Plaid's voters want an independent Wales, but there's then 60-70% who risk being picked off not by the Tories or Lib Dems necessarily, but by Labour. The practical effects of this are not winning enough votes to get regional seats, and losing places like Carmarthen East.

John Dixon said...

"We're not going to be an inch closer to an independent Wales if Plaid Cymru loses even more seats and even more ground to an increasingly "Welsh" Labour party."

I'm not sure that that is true, but even if it were it doesn't prove the opposite, i.e. that rejecting Labour does take us an inch closer.

In any event, my point was not about whether voting for Labour does or does not make a difference; it was more general than that. To summarise and generalise: if no-one is making any argument for any constitutional status for Wales which is not also being made by a significant element within the de facto governing party, and if there is no real sign that the electoral support for that governing party is in any way diminishing in the foreseeable future, then the best place to promote that viewpoint is from inside that governing party.