 |
| (Pic : preventdisease.com) |
There's been a lot of discussion from the Bay Bubble (too much in my opinion) on what last week's Scottish independence referendum, and its result, "means for Wales" .
I consider yesterday's statement from the First Minister (and debate) the "official" National Assembly and Welsh Government response. Until Westminster decides to put something on paper, everything else is constitutional nut-busting and bean-flicking.
I should take this opportunity to highlight some new features on the National Assembly's website(s) which myself and others played a minor role in helping to develop.
The web pages have been made mobile/tablet-friendly, while the search function has been revamped to make it easier to find specifics in the Assembly's archives; whether that's in the record of proceedings, by committee topic, location, AM etc.
Senedd TV – which was crap – has been radically overhauled. The picture quality's now high-definition, which is better than that provided by BBC's Democracy Live (plus it covers all Assembly meetings, which includes the committees and Assembly-related events).
Senedd TV now has a live rewind and pause facility, a much simpler way of embedding videos in third-party websites with the ability to create clips (
I suppose the time's come to test this out....
The Assembly Indyref Debate
The First Minister started off (clip) by saying that he spoke with the Prime Minister last Friday, and he would hold David Cameron to his promise that Wales would be "at the heart of the debate". Despite Scotland's "positive choice to remain in the UK", he said the status quo was gone and there was no going back to the way things were.
The future of the UK needs to be decided by the whole UK, and we need to move on from "short-term sticking plaster solutions", as "change in one part of the UK should mean change in the others". He plugged Silk I, and called for the "swift implementation of Silk II" – as long as any extra powers considered for Scotland are considered for Wales too.
Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Davies (Con, South Wales Central) said (clip) that the constitution needed to be looked at as a whole, with no nations in isolation – including England. He said there was no automatic need for powers that might be going to Scotland to come to Wales due to the closer interconnection with England in terms of public services. He asked how the Welsh Government would take this forward, and whether the role and number of MPs from the devolved nations needed to be looked at?
The First Minister said the response from the UK Government and Prime Minister was "woefully inadequate", believing a Westminster cabinet sub-committee isn't suitable, with the solution requiring involvement from all of the UK's governments – including on the issue of MPs.
He said English votes for English laws (EV4EL) wouldn't work, citing an example where privatising parts of the English NHS would impact spending in the devolved administrations. He added that each of the nations needed to be recognised as "different, but not second best", saying Scotland remained in the UK "by a whisker", and could still secede if the UK isn't properly rebalanced.
In response to questions from Julie Morgan AM (Lab, Cardiff North), Carwyn said that there needed to be a "sensible and calm way forward" on reform, and that "The Vow" was given in haste. He had sympathy for House of Lords reform (which Julie attempted whilst an MP), and suggested a model similar to the US Senate, where geographical regions are given equal representation. The First Minister supports the voting age being reduced to 16 across all elections - which is becoming a cross-party consensus since the Scottish referendum.
Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood (Plaid, South Wales Central), said (clip) the Prime Minister was yet to elaborate on his comment that Wales would "be at the heart of the debate", and criticised the UK Government's position on the Wales Bill, which she believes is too weak. She also raised the lack of vision from the First Minister on his preferred structure for devolution.
Leanne asked whether a cross-party position would be agreed before any negotiations with the UK Government, or whether individual parties would submit their own proposals? She said Plaid would work for a common agreement if possible, and asked what the First Minister meant by "swift implementation of Silk II" and whether that meant by or during the next Assembly term? She rattled off a list of possible powers including corporation tax and the Assembly's electoral arrangements.
The First Minister expected the "lockstep" to go from the Wales Bill. He also expected the current timetable for Silk II to be adhered to, but it needs to address the £300million underfunding issue first. He said tax powers needed to be looked at across the UK as a whole, with a certain level raised UK wide with devolved top-ups – this should include the tax credit system. He agreed that electoral arrangements should be a matter for the Assembly, but that a two-thirds majority should be needed to make fundamental changes.
Welsh Lib Dem leader, Kirsty Williams (Lib Dem, Brecon & Radnor), said (clip) the status quo was never going to be an option after the referendum result. She said changes to the Welsh devolution settlement "must provide greater clarity....stability....and accountability", and that Silks I & II provided a "blueprint for Westminster negotiations".
She asked whether progress had been made on joint UK-Wales working groups? Whether extra powers beyond those in Silk would be assessed on whether they would be in the Welsh interest? And whether local councils should also have devolved powers?
The First Minister responded by saying the UK Government hadn't committed to any part of Silk II this side of the UK General Election. He said some uncontroversial parts – like reserved powers – could be visited sooner in the current Wales Bill.
He said it wasn't his decision whether powers are appropriate for Wales or not – it's a matter for the Assembly as a whole. However, he added a cautionary note that new powers shouldn't come without financial cover. He also added that the Williams Commission provided an opportunity to devolve powers downwards from the Assembly.
In response to questions from Mick Antoniw AM (Lab, Pontypridd), Mike Hedges AM (Lab, Swansea East) and John Griffiths AM (Lab, Newport East), the First Minister said that it wasn't good enough that Westminster leads with everyone else feeding in - "those days are gone". He also pointed out the importance of redistribution of wealth, which was part of "The Vow" and – as John Griffiths pointed out – played a key part in the referendum debate.
The most interesting contribution came from Simon Thomas AM (Plaid, Mid & West Wales). He said (clip) the high turn-out showed that Scottish independence/the constitution was, "an issue people were concerned about and interested in" (we're constantly told nobody is). He pointed out that it was ironic that what was now proposed for Scotland ("Devo Max") wasn't on the ballot paper and should be proposed for Wales too.
He asked the First Minister to expand on what he means by "Home Rule", and brought up the question of the income tax referendum, and whether it would be better to have a referendum on the principle of "Home Rule" itself (something I've hinted at before too)? He also asked whether a written constitution for the UK would be appropriate?
The First Minister underlined that were "pros and cons" to having an unwritten constitution, one of the pros being the flexibility if offered. He repeated that it was important that the "lockstep" went, and described his definition of "Home Rule" as a guarantee of devolution, with powers clearly under the control of the people of Wales (reserved powers?). He said, "We're all partners in the UK" and, "not all powers under the sun should reside in Westminster."
Constitutional Vinegar Strokes
 |
Consider just how many constitutional conventions we've had in Wales since 1999. It reads like a war memorial; Richards, Holtham, Jones-Parry, Silk (I, II), Williams – that's on-off constitutional masturbation for the best part of 12 years. You can add the Institute of Welsh Affairs' well-meaning but baffling proposal for a "crowd-sourced" convention to that list too.
Every single time extra powers for the Assembly have been proposed, there's a watering down of said proposals; proposals which could settle the matter now are kicked down the road through "death by committee". 5 to 10 years later, when the political class realise they might actually need the powers they rejected in the last round of constitutional hand shandy, the process starts all over again.
The harsh fact is that while supporters of independence know what we want, and those who want to abolish the Assembly know what they want, those in Wales who fall "in between" (every single party, bubble insider and politician in Wales) don't have a f**king clue what they want - and they've lost control of the debate as events have overtaken them.
It's only now, with the Union suitably threatened, that we're starting to get some strong desire for reform. I've already lost interest.
"Home Rule" (in the Irish sense) is what we would now call "Devo Max" (devolution of all domestic/internal policies, like the Isle of Man and Channel Islands), except Welsh Labour have never wanted that. For all the harnessing of Lloyd-George's ghost, the First Minister is trying to sell Silk II as "Home Rule" as if it'll settle the matter for generations when it'll do nothing of the sort - energy powers for one.
In fairness, the Lib Dems have always supported federalism, but have never outlined what that means in practice. Plus, it's not as if they've pushed hard for that whilst in power at Westminster.
The Welsh Conservatives now appear to back federalism, but couldn't even agree on something as basic as the income tax lockstep. They appear to want all the trappings of a nation state (Treasury, "Welsh Parliament") without the nation state bit, and it looks like Carwyn is willing to go along with that too. I think that's called, "Having your cake and eating it." There are those of us who are a bit more grown up.
Plaid Cymru have launched another discussion paper, this time relating to the constitution (pdf), which is essentially a repackaging and rewording of their Silk Commission submissions (they're not going to pull one over on me that easily). This should be right up their street, but they've wrapped their latent support for independence in so many euphemisms and meaningless management-speak phrases down the years they've confused themselves and the rest of us.
They held another sodding debate on this today; "rebalancing powers between nations" and "sovereignty resting with the people of Wales" becoming the new "self-government" and "independence in Europe/Europe of the regions". The fact they've said more on Scottish independence in the last two years than they have on Welsh independence in the last ten speaks volumes.
This is a debate where Wales is quite firmly on the sidelines. That's wrong, and the First Minister spoke a lot of sense on this yesterday. But because Westminster can't see what's in front of its face constitution-wise, it's been reduced to a matter between England and Scotland.
As far as Westminster are concerned, we've had our constitutional convention – Silk I & II – and if the Welsh political class aren't satisfied with that, too bad, that's all you're getting because it's all you said you wanted. There's no point bleating for more powers (when they were rejected whilst they were on the table) just because Scotland might get them – I'm talking welfare, broadcasting etc. They blew their load too soon.
As I support independence, no tinkering with the UK's archaic constitution is going to satisfy me. Though having said that, I can live with a federal or (preferably) confederal UK, that retains some semblance of wealth redistribution, whilst giving the respective parts maximum control over what to do with those funds and policies (including England and Cornwall).
The biggest mistake Unionists in Wales are making is thinking that the UK is a partnership of equal nations when it's actually an English socio-economic hegemony. Westminster is an English Parliament controlling the whole UK's affairs despite devolution.
Once you take the economics out of the equation, perhaps they'll start to see that unless they can manufacture a working federal model for the UK, Welsh independence isn't as silly a proposition as it sounds. It's actually very practical, and it'll save me some skin on my knuckles at least.
0 comments:
Post a Comment