Whether it was
actually true or not is an interesting question for some harmless
speculation. Personally, I doubt
it. In the first General Election during
my period of party membership, in February 1974, the party won 2 seats on 10.8%
of the vote (adding a third seat later the same year on the same percentage). Fast forward 41 years, and in the election
earlier this month, the party won 3 seats on 12.1% of the vote. In all the intervening elections, the number
of seats won has varied between 3 and 4; and the percentage of the vote has varied
between 7.3% and 14.3%. It’s a fairly
consistent long term pattern at UK level.
However,
whether I believe that sidelining even further the question of independence would transform
the party’s electoral chances is irrelevant.
What’s more important here is that there certainly are people within the
party who believe it (and there are others who don’t support the aim at all –
but I’m going to ignore that group). One
of the responses to last week’s post suggested that the author was far from
certain that adopting a more full-blooded position of support for independence
would have worked for Plaid in the election.
And actually, I agree – but that wasn’t the question that I was raising.
My question was more about what is the route from where we are to achieving
independence.
There are
certainly some who believe that the two are the same thing – that the route to
independence is through Plaid achieving electoral success, and that the party
needs to do whatever it takes to achieve that success. The problem is that that leads to a curious position
which claims that:
a) The only way that we can win independence
is if Plaid Cymru wins elections
b) The only way that Plaid Cymru can win
elections is by sidelining the question of independence.
I’m sure that
Baldrick would describe this as a plan more cunning than the cunningest cunning
plan ever devised, but the logic of it escapes me. And an endorsement from Baldrick, given the
success rate of his cunning plans, wouldn’t be much of a recommendation anyway.
I oversimplify
the position – of course. It’s clouded
and complicated by talk of ‘nation-building’, the creation of institutions, and the need to take things one at a
time. But sometimes, a drastic
simplification is the best way of exposing the central fallacy of an argument;
and in this case, the fallacy is clear; no matter how the argument is finessed,
winning elections on a platform which does not include independence will never
bring about that independence. A
corollary is that no argument was ever won by not putting the case.
But that in turn just
highlights the core question – what is Plaid for?
If it is ‘for’
winning elections and gaining and exercising power, then it is arguable that
the current strategy might well be the best one, even if it isn’t
proving very successful (there's no rule that says even the best plan will necessarily succeed). But if it is
‘for’ gaining independence for Wales, then the current strategy is doomed to
fail, based as it is on arguing that the core aim is not even open to consideration in the
foreseeable future. It leaves one
important open question, though. If that
isn’t the vehicle for achieving independence, what is?
Posts
5 comments:
Unless Plaid now revert to being Plaid Genedlaethol Cymru, the National Party of Wales, and put independence at the core of their message, perhaps Paid Cymru would be a more suitable moniker? It works in both languages equally well...
An enlightening exchange in an article on Plaid and SNP earlier between Gwynfor Evans and Winnie Ewing shows the reason is the dominance of cultural nationalism in the welsh independence movement.
It said ‘In her memoirs, the SNP’s Winnie Ewing recalls telling Plaid Cymru’s leader Gwynfor Evans that she was envious of the “linguistic heritage” of Wales. She was rather surprised by his response that, unlike Wales, support for the SNP could come from anywhere as “an inbuilt patriotic response which was not dependent on language.”
A movement like Scotland’s Radical Independence Collective that did so much to engage working class communities and raise understanding and political awareness among the population is what’s needed because an economic and social case for welsh independence with broader appeal is possible, but that’s not from my experience what Plaid Cymru supporters want to hear.
As long as the independence movement is lead through the cultural nationalist arm it is never going to appeal to more than 10 - 15% of the welsh population, Gwynfor Evans new it in his time and so does Leanne Wood I suspect.
The quotes are from this article http://theconversation.com/a-tale-of-two-nations-why-the-scottish-nationalists-outperformed-plaid-cymru-41725
"A movement like Scotland’s Radical Independence Collective that did so much to engage working class communities and raise understanding and political awareness among the population is what’s needed because an economic and social case for welsh independence with broader appeal is possible, but that’s not from my experience what Plaid Cymru supporters want to hear."
In broad terms, I agree with (both parts of) that. The 'main stream' of the debate on independence has been allowed to become the exclusive territory of a party which has become increasingly reluctant to lead that debate, whilst also being reluctant to allow anyone else to do so either for fear of losing its exclusive position. Something has to break that logjam.
One question that I have though is this: whilst in Scotland, the RIC was able to reach the parts that others couldn't, it was doing so in the context set by a political party which was actively promoting the question. How can the impact of that different context be best overcome?
What to do, stop talking and start taking action, contact RIC and arrange a conference/lecture similar to the group who got National Collective’s organisers to come to in Cardiff University and share experiences soon after the referendum on what worked, what didn’t and how they did it.
Another thing is start supporting groups like the People’s Assembly Against Austerity who are organising protests all over Wales about social and economic issues and take it from there.
https://www.facebook.com/PeoplesAssemblyAgainstAusterityWales
"But that in turn just highlights the core question – what is Plaid for?
If it is ‘for’ winning elections and gaining and exercising power, then it is arguable that the current strategy might well be the best one, even if it isn’t proving very successful (there's no rule that says even the best plan will necessarily succeed). But if it is ‘for’ gaining independence for Wales, then the current strategy is doomed to fail, based as it is on arguing that the core aim is not even open to consideration in the foreseeable future. It leaves one important open question, though. If that isn’t the vehicle for achieving independence, what is?"
In my view it has to be the former. Welsh nationalism being in government and making the country more confident, and yes more Welsh- accepting that identities shift and change.
The vehicle then has to be a grassroots movement. Such a movement exists in Scotland, exists in Catalonia, exists in the Basque Country (bit of a complex situation there though...), alongside nationalist parties of government; but is virtually non-existent in Wales.
Post a Comment