A 'Yes' for Wales

Some important news from Wales which you almost certainly won't have seen on our glorious British 'national' news. This evening, the Senedd passed a motion which triggers the process for a referendum to be held on transferring legislative powers to the institution from Westminster. The motion, which required the support of at least 40 AMs, succeeded in garnering the support of 53 in the end, with no abstentions or votes against.



And so begins a process which will see First Minister Carwyn Jones write to Secretary of State, Peter Hain, informing him of the result. The Secretary of State then has 120 days in which to consider the request, and lay a draft order for the referendum, or to respond in the negative explaining why a vote can't go ahead.

A rejection seems highly unlikely. Hain has already said this evening that he looks forward to “beginning the preparatory work”. His Conservative shadow, Cheryl Gillan, has also made it clear that the Tories, should they win the general election in the meantime, will not stand in the way of a referendum. Plaid Cymru, as you would expect, are in favour, while for the Lib Dems, Kirsty Williams has argued that the present settlement is “unsustainable”.

There's no doubting the progress that the self-government argument has made in Wales since the knife edge referendum result in 1997. I stayed up to watch the results coming in that evening, and went to bed in the wee small hours, despondent that the 'No' campaign looked to have won the day. In the event, it took the final declaration from Carmarthenshire to swing it. Seldom has a student hangover disappeared quite so quickly!



The argument for the transfer of legislative powers ought to be unanswerable. The current system whereby Legislative Competence Motions have to be passed in order to give the Senedd powers to legislate on particular matters, is clunky and cumbersome. However, the challenge, at a time of cynicism about politics and politicians, is to set this in a context and narrative which resonates with people. Done properly, and with the cross party support already in evidence, it can give the Senedd, and indeed the whole idea of self-government for Wales, the emphatic legitimising endorsement that so many loud voices have always sought to deny the institution.

While I wish my many Welsh friends and colleagues likely to be involved in the 'Yes' campaign all the best, it's hard not to draw a parallel with Scotland. Here, we're told by our regional franchises of Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems that a referendum on the constitution is no-go. Thanks to this evening's vote in the Commons on electoral reform, that's two referendums which now have the go-ahead to take place during an economic downturn, when people's minds are focused on [insert own self-serving excuse here].


It really shouldn't need to be pointed out, but the legitimacy of our political processes and their ability to respond to people's concerns has arguably never been more important. It's not just about who governs or how they govern, but also the ability we have to influence how we ourselves are governed. Here's to a successful referendum in Wales, and to a similarly successful vote on Independence in the not too distant future.

Update: Hamish Macdonell adds his slant in the Caledonian Mercury.

What's The Welsh For 'Schadenfreude'?

Interesting developments today in Wales, where all hell appeared to break loose after Labour put out a press release declaring that there would be no more progress on a referendum on further devolution until after the general election.

Referendum? Further devolution? Labour? Yes, you read the above correctly. Enacted by a Labour government and supported by the Lib Dems, as a result of the 2006 Government of Wales Act, provision exists for our Cambrian cousins to hold a referendum to decide whether or not the Welsh Assembly should be given primary legislative powers. Even some Welsh Conservatives are now in on the fun, arguing that not only should there be a vote on granting legislative powers, but also arguing in favour of the move.

The statement by First Minister Rhodri Morgan, Welsh Secretary Peter Hain and the Chair of Welsh Labour clearly caught their Plaid Cymru coalition partners unawares. Part of the 'One Wales' coalition deal between the two parties is a commitment to holding the referendum, if it is winnable, by May 2010. In response, Plaid branded the move as a "serious breach of trust" and "completely unacceptable". Things appeared to have cooled down by the afternoon, though, with Rhodri Morgan and Plaid Depute First Minister Ieuan Wyn Jones able to say in an emergency statement following some hasty afternoon negotiations that "all options" on timing were open.

The similarities, not to say differences with Scotland are immediately apparent. With the Westminster Government insisting that there will be no progress on Calman until after the election, and this attempt by Peter Hain to delay a referendum in Wales, the game being played by Westminster Labour is pretty clear. Everything will be put into the deep freeze for now and the election fought on the claim that only Labour can deliver on further devolution in an attempt to try and shore up their vote. This either buys another few years of time in which to do nothing if Labour gets re-elected, or leaves the whole thing for the Conservatives to deal with should they run out winners.

Except, neither Plaid nor the SNP have played ball. The Scottish Government has draft orders in place which would allow for Calman to proceed without any need for further delay. Meanwhile, with Rhodri Morgan due to stand down, Plaid have the option of refusing to back any Labour candidate for the First Ministership who opts to backslide on this aspect of the coalition deal.

But why might Labour, other than its innate conservatism and reluctance to concede any more devolution than it absolutely must to fend off the electoral threat of the nationalists, be so keen to put the brakes on? The answer may lie very close to home, with echoes to be heard in the increasingly shrill cries against holding an independence referendum in Scotland.

Firstly, there's the problem for all of the unionist parties, but particularly for Labour, of being seen to support a Welsh referendum while ruling one out in Scotland. It's a position which holds precisely zero credibility. With public support for a referendum already high, it's a contradiction with which the SNP would need no encouragement to make hay over.

However, the ramifications run so much deeper. Think on the 'neverendum' argument posited by unionists as a reason why Scots shouldn't even be permitted to hold a first vote. Joyously, in section 103 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, it is made clear that if a majority of Welsh voters do not back the transfer of primary legislative powers, this does not prevent Westminster from laying the orders necessary to hold a further referendum in the future.

In just one paragraph, the Labour party in Government, and the Lib Dems who supported the bill on its passage, have enshrined explicitly in legislation the principal that there should be no time bar on holding a subsequent referendum if people vote against. Scotland can't get a vote on further constitutional change, but the Welsh can have as many votes as they like until they deliver what the government considers to be the right answer. Thus, by Labour and the Lib Dems own hands, the neverendum argument, such as it ever was, is killed stone dead.

The timescales promise to be similarly glorious, at least from an SNP perspective since all parties in Wales seem still to be contemplating a referendum prior to 2011. Compare and contrast this position with the unionist advanced argument in Scotland that constitutional ‘navel gazing’ (Calman presumably excepted) is the ‘wrong’ thing to do in a recession. In Wales, we will shortly be hearing the counter argument from a Lib/Lab/Con alliance that only with the further transfer of powers can the measures needed to counter the downturn adequately be taken.

If the Welsh Assembly backs a referendum by the required 2/3rds majority, the Welsh First Minister has to give notice of this in writing to the Secretary of State. The clock then starts ticking – the Secretary of State then has 120 days to either lay a draft of a statutory instrument containing an Order in Council before each House of Parliament, or give notice in writing to the First Minister as to why they are refusing to do so.

If this Assembly vote happens prior to the election, say in mid February 2010, it means that the first thing a Welsh Secretary will have to do post-election is decide whether or not a referendum can go ahead. Whether that person be Labour or Tory, even assuming that matters don't move quite so quickly, it seems likely that just as the unionist parties carry out their threat in Scotland to vote down a referendum bill, the issue will be resurrected almost immediately when matters come to a head in Wales.

Gloating is seldom an attractive trait in politics, but then again, neither is the defence of blatant double standards. Thanks to this piece of three year old legislation, the unionists have slayed every single argument that ever passed their lips against the principal of a referendum on constitutional change, on the principle of having future votes if required and on the principle of having a referendum during an economic downturn.

Peter Hain is due to visit Wales tomorrow, and will doubtless come under intense pressure to explain firstly why today's statement was made, and secondly, to state whether he backs the position as set out this afternoon by The First Minister and his Deputy. It should be fun to watch, but not nearly as much fun as it will be to see Scotland's unionists squirming over why Scotland should be denied a referendum just as the Welsh seem set to prepare to go to the polls.

The twisting and turning in the months ahead will be simply exquisite to watch. Now where's that popcorn?

UPDATE: Plaid Candidate Heledd Fychan seems mildly amused by it all as well...

Choosing Scotland’s Future

Due to appear in 'The Flag in The Wind' - published online each Friday


Last Tuesday saw the launch of a Scottish Government White Paper on the powers of Scotland’s Parliament. Unveiled by First Minister Alex Salmond, the document sets out 3 potential futures for Scotland: no change, greater devolution or independence.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, former Labour Minister Frank Field accused Alex Salmond of being ‘rather cheeky’ for so doing, on the grounds that “devolution for Scotland was meant to put an end to any further discussions on the political shape of the United Kingdom”. Oh dear. Naughty us. We’d better just pack up and go home then, hadn’t we?

Actually, the best retort conceivable to Frank Field is printed on the inside cover of the document itself, where it quotes Irish nationalist Charles Stewart Parnell: “No man has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation; no man has a right to say to his country, “Thus far shalt thou go and no further””. It’s a declaration of principal which the other parties, which seem to be swithering at present over whether to take part in the conversation if independence remains an option, would do well to take to heart.

Cathy Jamieson, Labour’s acting leader in Scotland, burbled after the launch that: “We do not support independence. Everything in this paper is about independence”. Well actually, it’s nothing of the kind, as she would know if she’d bothered to even glance at it before parading her ignorance in front of the nation’s television cameras. Similarly, the Lib Dems should beware of making the same mistake as they made post election: that of insisting on the SNP’s repudiation of independence as a precondition of political talks.

The more that the other parties try to portray independence as being somehow illegitimate; as some kind of 1984-esque ‘thoughtcrime’, if you like, the more likely it is that they will be swept into irrelevance by the resulting public contempt. It’s also not good enough to say that since the SNP took 1/3 of the vote, that 2/3 therefore oppose independence. People vote for a variety of reasons, and independence, or indeed the ‘more powers’ agenda, deserves to be considered separately from the other issues of the day which might influence how people cast their votes.

Still, the ground has at least shifted. No longer does Labour argue that there should be no more powers for Holyrood. Instead, the debate is about which powers the parliament should now have. In that, the SNP has a clear advantage, in that independence is easy to define. The pressure is now on the other parties to define what their preferred option of ‘more powers’ would actually mean in practice.

In the interim, voters will be able to read the White Paper and give their views online. The most significant part of this, though, is that Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories are no longer in charge of the debate. The people are, and that might be what’s disconcerting the unionist parties the most.

Away and Foulkes Yourselves

Well, that was the Labour conference in Oban. Anyone tuning in to hear what the party had to say about health, education, the economy – the ‘real issues’ which Labour always used to tell us were the ones which mattered – would have been sorely disappointed. Instead, rocked by a series of opinion polls which show the SNP in contention for next May and support for Independence at high levels, Labour’s leading lights treated us to a series of vitriolic set-piece attacks about borders, barriers and bogeymen everywhere.

What a contrast with the SNP conference, where there was a palpable sense of a party putting policies in place for government. Maybe that’s why the SNP had over 1,200 in the Perth Concert Hall to hear Alex Salmond set out his stall, while Labour had to bus in schoolchildren and tame trade unionists to make the 500 seat Corran Halls look full for the TV cameras.

First up was the egregious George Foulkes, who always reminds me of ‘Squealer’ from Animal Farm – the pig sent out by the other pigs to explain away why they are becoming ever more like the humans they replaced, and to question the loyalty of anyone who harbours the slightest doubts as to their good intentions. And when that order comes in, whether from Tony Blair now or Vladimir Romanov as in the past, wee George always springs fearlessly into action.

Leaping excitedly from trotter to trotter, no contention is too ludicrous, no argument is too facile for him to try and advance. However, even as his bluster reaches levels liable to endanger shipping round our coasts, I find it hard to dislike him. An object of ridicule he may be, but he’s a completely laughable and peripheral individual, worthy more of our pity than our dislike.

One person I have no such difficulty with is Douglas Alexander, a man of such ability and charm that he is still to date the only person ever to drive me into any kind of agreement with Dr David Starkey. Similarly with John Reid, a swaggering little thug who clearly has the intelligence to engage with the Independence argument, but conspicuously chooses not to do so.

In claiming that the SNP is not ‘fit for purpose’, Reid makes the spectacularly trite point that international terrorism, organised crime, mass migration and the environment do not stop at the border. Of course they don’t, but then neither do the consequences of his government’s misguided policies on these challenges. The actions of this government in Iraq have unquestionably made the world a more dangerous place. However, to use that new danger as justification to continue the union is like the defence used by the little boy on trial for the murder of his parents, when he begs the court for clemency on the grounds that he is an orphan.

But despite that strong late contender, the prize for the most nauseating piece of self-serving hypocrisy must go to Tony Blair himself. Blair flew in to Oban from Belfast, having spent the morning urging accommodation with those who had waged an armed campaign against British rule in Northern Ireland. After basking in delegates' appreciation for only the briefest of moments and with barely a pause for breath, he then spent the rest of his speech lambasting the entirely peaceful and democratic nationalist movement in Scotland.

Does he think no-one will notice the contradiction? As a politician who has placed himself in the vanguard of the global ‘war on terror’, just what sort of message does he imagine he is sending round the world with this latest intellectual contortion? I know it’s all about securing the ‘legacy’, but does he not feel even slightly ridiculous breaking off from a group hug with Sinn Fein and the DUP to try and knife the SNP’s peaceful, inclusive and moderate ambitions?

Anyone looking to Gordon Brown for a positive endorsement of Britain would have been left waiting in vain also. Independence was a 19^th century concept and interdependence was where it was at, he told us. Families would be ripped asunder and our global universities and businesses would wither on the vine without benign government from London. Globalisation would be something for an independent Scotland to fear, we were told. Something only to be embraced from behind the walls of fortress Britain.

Maintenance of power for power’s sake is the unspoken mantra. The question is, are we prepared to allow Labour to subject us to another 4 years of drift and complacency off the back of their tribal dislike of innovation, or do we give the SNP a chance and consider Independence in a mature and thoughtful manner in a democratic referendum?

By opting for Independence, maybe we can find better ways of representing the things that do genuinely unite people on these islands. I’ll bet that in the battle of values we are being promised, the dignity of self-government and nation-building offered by the SNP will prove a damn site more enduring than the self-interest and infinite self-absorbsion offered by Labour's 'Scotia Nostra'.