What type of Brexit suits Wales?

Soft Brexit vs Hard Brexit - the same process but different end results.
(Pic : buzzfeed.com)

I said I wouldn't return to Brexit until something concrete happens. Now that we have a timetable for the activation of Article 50 , a recent ministerial meeting involving the devolved administrations and hints at what sort of Brexit the UK Government will pursue, it's worth coming back to it again.

Read More

The End of the Senedd?

I know many people dream of this, but it's time
to wake them up; silly season's almost over.

2016's silly season has been a classic. The period between the end of July and the start of September always brings out the creative side in politicians, their press officers and producers of yellow journalism as they try to draw attention to themselves, keeping eyes focused on pages and screens amidst other distractions.

Read More

Senedd Debates Brexit

(Pic : Wales Online)

I won't be covering First Minister's Questions this week – even though the business of government and legislature goes on – instead choosing to cover the National Assembly's response to the EU referendum result.

Read More

EU Referendum : The IWA Debate

We still don't know when the referendum will be held on the UK's membership of the European Union but, to much fanfare, the first Welsh debate was hosted last night in Cardiff by the Institute of Welsh Affairs (IWA) and Cardiff University, with the First Minister lining up against UKIP leader, Nigel Farage MEP.

Read More

Assembly Requests "Clear & Durable" Devolution Settlement

When the Prime Minister and that-other-bloke-who-used-to-be-important
announced their response to Silk II, it looked like we were due constitutional clarity.
So far it's still a bit cloudy.
(Pic : The Guardian)

The Assembly's Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee recently reported back on a short inquiry they undertook into the future of devolved powers. This was done in light of Silk Commission Part II, the fallout from 2014's Scottish independence referendum, St David's Day Agreement and the forthcoming Wales Bill – expected to be introduced in the autumn.

Read More

Westminster 2015 : The Post-Mortem

Why are we looking at five more Tory years when we could've had this?
(Pic : Wales Online)

In one final visit to the 2015 House of Commons election, it's worth looking in more detail at last Thursday's results in Wales - considering why it happened and what can be learned from it.

Read More

Westminster 2015 : Predictions

Um....

Tonight's the night, so it's time for the real fun to begin....

Read More

Indyref - The National Assembly Reacts

(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 (unfortunately they always autostart, which created a wall of noise when I attempted it here - hence the slight delay to posting this blog FIXED), and will eventually put transcripts alongside the video to act as de-facto subtitling.

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

When the Welsh political class discuss the constitution, it makes me want to pant hoot my way up into the hills and forests on my knuckles never to return, a little piece of me dying each time. Once again I feel as though my soul is being slowly harvested.

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.

Read More

Scots Wha Nae

"Freeman stand, or Freeman fa'"
(Pic : The Telegraph)

It's a bit strange to say this, but unfortunately I was right.

As expected, Scotland has rejected independence by 55.3% to 44.7%. I predicted a no vote of 56-44 on an 80-85% turnout (actual figure 84.5%), so I was pretty much spot on.


Why the No side won

"The Positive Case for Union" as presented by Better Together.

It's too early to offer detailed reasons why the Scots rejected independence, but there are a few things you can pick up from the campaign itself.

"Project Fear" worked – If you generate too many uncertainties in people's minds, the likelihood that they would reject a proposition will no doubt increase. A feature of other independence referendums, like Quebec, is that the closer polling day gets, the more likely people will opt for the "safest option". As I said yesterday, a lot of wavering undecideds, "soft yes" and "shy no" voters probably verged on the side of the status quo and voted no at the last minute. It looks like postal votes went heavily in the no's favour too.

There were too many questions that weren't answered by the yes campaign at the right time and to the right extent - using currency as an example. Concerns over currency might seem technocratic, but it guides absolutely everything from high end macroeconomics to daily life.

Although the position of independence and things like currency are debatable (a currency union was nailed-on despite the bluster, it's in everyone's interests), the doubts were always there. After everything people have been through since the Great Recession they were perhaps less likely to take a fiscal risk.

Yes Scotland lost women and older voters early on – I wouldn't be surprised if, when the number-crunching is done, the referendum was lost amongst middle-age women and pensioners. The polling figures have long pointed towards this being the case.

Better Together very nearly blew it with "Patronising BT Woman", but – let's face it – the archetypal small-c conservative mother wanting to "think of the children" would probably back the status quo anyway. The advert was simply preaching to the choir, and was done to stop their vote shifting yes-ward. Also, an independent Scotland shouldn't have any problem meeting its welfare obligations, but do anything to even hint at threatening pensions or elderly entitlements and you lose older voters.

Despite Alex Salmond's clear political talent, by the end, the campaign turned a bit macho and triumphalist with echos of Labour in 1992. Nicola Sturgeon and other senior women MSPs and personalities should've had a more prominent role in the yes campaign, and you've got to wonder what impact Margo MacDonald would've had if she were still with us.

Yes Scotland took a gamble, hoping there would be a similar bounce to the one the SNP enjoyed in 2011, but they didn't quite pull it off. If the referendum were a month later, or that YouGov poll were a week later....who knows?

"Astroturfing" wasn't enough – Yes Scotland was a very well-organised, decentralised, grass-roots led campaign that crossed all sections of Scottish society. The Anglo-Scottish media and Westminster machine are still a giant though. Until the panicked last fortnight, there was latent but not outright bias by British media establishment. Then it became more obvious, and disgraceful, and should – quite rightly – damage the global and domestic reputation of the BBC.

Trying to control the debate up against such a media machine - and pretty much the entire Scottish domestic mainstream press (notable exceptions like The Sunday Herald aside) - was always going to be a struggle. To their credit, Yes Scotland very nearly pulled it off.

The internet clearly isn't the be all and end all of political debate it's being made out to be. But sites like Wings over Scotland and Bella Caledonia probably played a role is getting the yes vote to as high a position it did. The future of the Scottish blogosphere is looking very, very bright indeed to the point of becoming mainstream. The same can't be said in Wales, unfortunately.

The arguments were weak and incomplete – I've read Scotland's Future from cover to cover because it'll certainly help me build up my own Independence Index for however long I'm blogging. Despite the pdf version being more than 400+ pages long, it felt incomplete. There was minimal coverage of many of the things I've covered even on this blog like abortion (which was mentioned in passing), genetic engineering, stem cell research, net neutrality....

It would've been better to have produced separate, detailed white papers on things like defence and foreign affairs and released them gradually over the course of the campaign. It felt too much like a policy push from the SNP instead of a neutral look at the sort of (largely limitless) options independence would've brought Scotland. So although the Unionist campaign was somewhat disunited, you can say something similar of the Nationalists. I doubt Greens, republicans and socialists would've liked what was outlined in Scotland's Future.

By the end, despite the widespread public enthusiasm, the yes campaign became a competition about how many Facebook likes and retweets you can get over the quality of the argument. The big rallies and publicity stunts were mostly an mirage - it's a mistake Plaid Cymru think they'll be able to repeat in Wales. It might look good on camera, but there's not much there. You can fill a public square with hundreds, even thousands, of supporters but elections are decided by the hundreds of thousands who aren't there.

It all probably relied too much on emotional/romantic "heart" arguments and gradually neglected "head" arguments in order to whip people into a frenzy.

What happens next?

"Politicians make promise on the hoof."
Let's see where this is heading....
(Pic : BBC)

That's unclear, and in a twisted way there's perhaps more long-term uncertainty now than there would've been had Scotland voted yes. If they'd voted yes, they would've become independent circa 2016 and all the issues like currency, debt and EU membership would've been ironed out one way or another.

This isn't a crippling blow to Scottish nationalism and, if anything, if Westminster now fails to deliver on any of promises as a result of a no vote – or if there's some sort of pathetic "backlash" from the rest of the Union - all those who hesitantly voted no will vote yes in any future referendum. The momentum will still be with yes long after this vote, it'll just climb slower. With every single setback at Westminster, I fully expect  #ShouldveVotedYes to become a popular hashtag on the Scottish Twittersphere.

Now, instead of the certainty of independence, we have the uncertainty of constitutional fudging done on the back of a fag packet.

Although the UK will survive for the medium-term, Scotland's position remains awkward as it's still unclear what constitutional reforms will take place. It'll be odd if Scots have rejected the chance to control and shape things like foreign affairs, welfare and defence for the sake of controlling the "Work Programme" and rail franchises.

Westminster needs to play this carefully, and the Scottish Government still have a strong hand to get "Devo Max" out of them, which could settle the constitutional argument for several decades. Scotland could get as close to independence as possible without actually threatening the Union, like some sort of confederal arrangement.

The status quo would only have been a serious option if this had been a very strong no (70-80%) – like the 1979 devolution referendum in Wales. There's absolutely no way Westminster can roll back devolution either without prompting a serious constitutional crisis that – judging by the polarisation seen in Scotland – could turn nasty.

I suppose I've been slightly prophetic. Back in 2011, I compared the Scottish situation to Quebec, and that's precisely where were are now. The no vote wasn't a strong endorsement of the Union – but it was enough to win the day; while the yes vote was sizable enough to mean this is unlikely to be the end of the matter, despite failing.

Will we have "neverendums" in Scotland until they're ready to say yes? Alex Salmond has ruled it out for a least 18 years (not that he'll be SNP leader that long). So again, just as I said a few weeks ago – we'll probably return to this in the 2020s or 2030s. Sometimes I don't like being right.

I imagine David Cameron is a very, very relieved man. If this had been a yes vote it would've been very hard to see him continuing as Prime Minister. That doesn't let him, or the other two major Westminster parties, off the hook. Labour's campaigning was an absolute shower, while the Lib Dems were nowhere to be seen. If they don't realise how close they came to blowing it, and come to see this as a vote of confidence and not a last ditch call for radical constitutional reform, some very senior politicians need to take a long hard look at themselves. Judging by their initial reaction to the result, it looks like they realise the desire for concrete change.

To even get into a position to ask such a question is damaging to the Union. Of the officially-recognised independence referendums during the 19th and 20th centuries, most have eventually led to independence.

This will have caused no real problems for the SNP (or other parties that supported independence like the Greens and Scottish Socialists). This will go down as a glorious defeat, and they're nailed-on for a third term in government - even if they take a hit in 2016.

It's unclear what the future holds for Alex Salmond. He can, if he wants to, bow out with his head held high, or he can carry on the momentum into 2016 and beyond. With Alex Salmond stepping down, Nicola Sturgeon is a leader in waiting but will have to be careful not to oversee a split between centrist-liberal and more socialist wings of the SNP. If Scotland had voted yes I would've expected the SNP to have disbanded anyway into two or three separate parties, or bolster what remained of Labour, Greens, Conservatives etc.

On what happens to the rest of us, I'm convinced there won't be a grand pan-UK "Constitutional Convention". It looks as though any changes are going to be fast-tracked before the Westminster elections next year and that's simply not enough time to get decent proposals on the table. There's no doubt in my mind that Wales will get further powers down the line – especially over criminal justice – but it'll be a negotiation between Cardiff and London and will be unrelated to the independence referendum. Silk (Part I, Part II) is all we're getting.

Carwyn can say what he likes but it's not as if he's been listened to so far - something I said almost a year ago to the day. I might not be a journalist or have the inside track into what's happening in Cardiff Bay, but most of the time I do know what I'm talking about. I'm getting fed up of saying things months, sometimes years, in advance that "our betters" only cotton on to at the last minute. AMs - in particular Welsh Government ministers - appear to have a very inflated sense of their impact and influence.

It'll be interesting to see what will happen in Catalonia next, who will probably have received a psychological boost due to the close(ish) result (or a hit due to the no vote), and are moving towards their own independence referendum despite constitutional interference from Madrid.

You could compare this campaign to a very bruising Rocky-style 30-round heavyweight contest. In the end, both sides are completely battered, knackered and have sustained heavy injuries. The underdog Nationalist boxer might well have collapsed at the end from a few heavy punches, but the Unionist boxer – although standing – is walking off dribbling and completely unrecognisable.

The National Assembly is due to debate Scotland's decision next week, and of course I'll cover what's said.

Read More

Referendum Day

Decisions, decisions.....
(Pic : The Guardian)

I have an uncharacteristically short blog today.

I've tried to stay out of this as much as possible, because the Scots are perfectly capable of making a decision that suits themselves based on the evidence and information presented, and don't need to be condescendingly told what to do by outsiders.

Our media (and some of our politicians) have gone overboard with the navel-gazing "What does this mean for Wales?" guff, culminating with the largely pointless debate on Monday. I hate to break this to you, but we're on the periphery of this debate however much you would like us not to be.

I can say with confidence that - unless you have ties with, or interests in, Scotland - the result is going to have minimal impact on Wales either way. There's not going to be a surge in support for independence should Scotland vote yes, the Barnett Formula won't be reformed, while the Silk Commission is all we're getting in terms of new powers for the foreseeable future. The best we can hope for is an accelerated timetable for Silk II.

Although it should be obvious that I have a preference, there are no "right" or "wrong" answers here, just a single choice facing the Scottish people.

I've prepared two posts for tomorrow – one in the event of a yes, one if there's a no - and one of them's going to get deleted.

I suppose I have to play the predictions game, and I always let my head rule my heart. So as for what I think will happen, there'll be a wobble amongst undecideds and soft yes voters, and the recent narrowing of the polls will encourage "shy noes" to turnout.

So I predict a "no vote", 56-44 on a 80-85% turnout.

I've never wanted to be more hopelessly wrong in my life.

Read More

Is Wales a principality?

It may well be a good branding strategy or tagline, but it's wrong.
(Pic : moneymarketing.co.uk)

TL;DR version – No.

I suppose you're expecting a bit more than that.

Wales is often called a "principality", and even our great and good make that mistake. I don't think it's down to deliberate ignorance, just a result of centuries of old wives tales as well as a legacy left by Wales' own native monarchy.

Whether a country is a principality or not depends on the title of the head of state. The head of state is a different role to head of government (they're rarely combined) and is usually the highest-ranking position in a nation's constitution.

In short, a principality is a nation state where the head of state is a prince or princess. Liechtenstein, Monaco and tonight's football opponents for Wales, Andorra, are principalities. Luxembourg is a Grand Duchy because their monarch holds the title of grand duke (an old Germanic title that's more senior than a prince but less so than a king or queen).

Wales' head of state is whoever's monarch (king or queen) of the United Kingdom. Wales is no more a principality than England or Scotland are.

Wales could only ever be a principality if it were independent and the head of state were a prince or princess (see : A Welsh Monarchy). Even if Wales became independent and retained the current monarchy, it couldn't be a principality, it would be a kingdom.

As alluded to earlier, the situation in Wales is a little more complicated because a large part of Wales (what is now Gwynedd, Flintshire, Conwy, Denbighshire, Anglesey, Carmarthenshire, Powys and Ceredigion) used to be an independent state/collection of independent states ruled by a prince(s) – a true "principality".

After the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284, the Prince of Wales retained a direct constitutional role in the governance of Wales. Wales was a semi-independent vassel state of England, and the Prince of Wales was the head of (what would eventually become) the Council of Wales and the Marches - a medieval form of devolution and a sort of "practice run" at ruling a country.

Following the Laws in Wales Acts, the principality, as a legal entity, was abolished. "Prince of Wales" became nothing more than the courtesy title given to the heir to the English throne, and the Council of Wales and the Marches was altered to be run by an appointed Lord President. Wales ceased being a principality at this point, but the name has stuck.

So Chuckles Windsor is a prince without a principality. However, as Duke of Cornwall he does enjoy some feudal rights that could be considered "constitutional" (Towards a Cornish Assembly?).

What is Wales?

What is this?
Or, perhaps more importantly, what do we want it to be?
(Pic : ITV Wales)

Some people perhaps like to think that Wales' non-status as a "principality of England" somehow undermines its nationhood. Well, as Wales isn't a principality at all it does nothing of the sort, but it is worth discussing what precisely Wales "is".

• A nation state is internationally-recognised as the sole sovereign entity that governs a defined territory (aka. independent) with an internationally-recognised political border. The United Kingdom is a nation state; Wales, California, Catalonia and England aren't. If Scotland votes yes next week, they're due to become a nation state in 2016.
• A region is a defined geographical area within a nation state or country, usually for administrative purposes only. It may have some level of unique identity and culture, but it's often considered a local variance of a larger one. Gwynedd is a region of Wales, the Highlands are a region of Scotland, while Greater London or the South East are regions of England.
• A country has a level of affinity and identity above that of a region. That could included a unified culture (with regional variations) that's distinct from neighbouring countries, recognition or acknowledgement as a nationality, a language (not dialect), as well as political, legal, academic, civic and cultural institutions.

In 2011, thanks to lobbying from Leanne Wood AM (Plaid, South Wales Central), Wales was officially granted country status by the International Standards Organisation (ISO).

"Country" and "nation state" are sometimes used interchangably because countries are usually full nation states too. This doesn't mean a "country" has to be independent, as they can be part of a larger union of other countries to form a single nation state (like Spain, Russia and the UK).

So the most accurate description of what Wales is would be a country within a nation state (United Kingdom) or a "constituent country". Those of us who support Welsh independence believe Wales should become a nation state.

Read More

500th Post : The Sliding Scale of Nationalism

I've reached an important milestone today - the heady heights of 500 blogs.

I'd like to thank everyone who's read or scanned over my ramblings for the last three years. I might make it look easy, but it's hard work - often miserable, sometimes fun – but always rewarding. Taking time to read it means a lot and I hope I can continue to count on your support for however long this blog continues. Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi.

To "celebrate", I'm going to do what I usually do and over-analyse an abstract topic.

There's been some discussion on here, and for many years elsewhere, about different strands of nationalism. Some people in Plaid Cymru, for example, don't support independence. Meanwhile, people who I would consider hardcore unionists have been tarred with the "nationalist" brush simply for backing Silk Commission recommendations.

In the light of a high-profile Twitter row involving the Welsh rugby captain, it's fair to say there's little  understanding of other people's points of view and how they might form their opinion on the matter.

A person's relationship with a nation can change based across a range of different factors. In my opinion, there are three broad identities that engender a sense of nationalism.

• National Identity : The stomach – This is the primal, visual manifestation of nationalism. It's a "gut instinct" where you define who and what you are, and the visible outward label. This could also be expanded to include ethnic identity too. This asks the question, "Who am I?"
• Cultural Identity : The heart – This is the more fluid, dainty identity by expressing what you feel about the nation you belong to, trying to figure out how to express that, and trying to determine what being Welsh/British/English represents. This asks the question, "What does it mean?"
• Political Identity : The head – The rational, thinking side of it. This determines how you express nationalism based on decision-making, policy and democracy. It determines how far you're willing to go in terms of self-determination and how the nation fits into that. This asks the question, "How does it work?"

In trying to determine what all this actually looks like, I've come up with a sort of Kinsey Scale of nationalist sentiment for each of them, based on two poles - Welsh & British nationalism. It's worth pointing out that there are no "right" or "wrong" answers here.

National Identity

(Click to enlarge)

The only solid figures we have from this are from the 2011 census (covered in more detail here).

The results clearly showed that a majority of people in Wales consider themselves exclusively Welsh with no British identity whatsoever. This sentiment was stronger in some parts of Wales than others – in particular the south Wales Valleys.

People who consider themselves Welsh & British are in a withered minority. In fact, more people in Wales consider themselves English-only (11.2%) than Welsh & British. It seems most people have a very firm idea of what their national identity is : Welsh, English or British – not a mix.

You would think, therefore, that the fortunes of nationalist politics in Wales would be much better than they are currently.

Clearly, national identity isn't that important in political terms. It's been successfully adopted by all of the main political parties in Wales to such an extent that it's become rather elastic, or is being used as a dog whistle when it suits their ends – as we saw recently with Welsh Labour's claims of a Tory "War on Wales".

It can be a successful tactic too, as playing to national identity illicits a primal, somewhat territorial, response in voters and public. As a living embodiment of Welsh self-determination, many of us probably will defend politicians - and devolution as an institution - if there's any hint of an outside attack that would infringe upon Welsh identity or self-respect.

An exception there would be those who would consider themselves British, and/or have an outward antipathy towards all forms of Welshness.

The real nuanced layers of nationalism and its outward expression perhaps lie in cultural identity.

Cultural Identity

(Click to enlarge)

Although culture and nationality are inextricably linked, they needn't be symbiotic. You can measure national identity in the census, and you can measure its political expression in voting intentions. Cultural nationality is very hard to quantify.

So, how can you tell if you're culturally Welsh, culturally British, or a mix of both? I suppose it's what's in your heart. If you feel Welsh you are Welsh, likewise with British. If you're comfortable with both – so be it.

The outward signs of a person's cultural identity involve those things outside the formality of national identity, ethnicity or voting. That includes : attitudes towards the Welsh language, sports, literature, arts, hobbies and media consumption habits.

Those at either end of the scale are more romantic in their cultural identity. They probably get a sentimental glint in their eye thinking of traditions and are highly involved in cultural affairs of their chosen identity. They're proud of what they are, and aren't afraid to tell the world. When that level of patriotism turns unpleasant it becomes chauvinism.

The next step down would be those who are very firm in their cultural identity. On the Welsh side, they might speak Welsh or really enjoy things like Welsh literature and Welsh music but aren't obsessive about it and are a bit more flexible.

Logically speaking, those who identify themselves as culturally British
will have to accept things like the Eisteddfod and Welsh language as
a part of British culture despite being uniquely Welsh.
(Pic : Ynni Cymru)

Likewise, anyone considering themselves "culturally British" will still have to accept all of Welsh culture – including the language – as a part of that identity. British culture without the Welsh bits isn't "Britishness" but "Englishness" because it rejects a key part of what makes "Britain" Britain.

Then there are those with a more fluid cultural identity, but with a clear preference for one. On the Welsh side they would be "Ninety Minute Nationalists". I've come up with "Olympic Unionists" for a British equivalent as I couldn't think of anything better.

Someone supporting Wales at the Six Nations, or the Welsh national football team, is 100% Welsh for ninety minutes. Even an ardent Unionist is advocating Welsh independence by supporting the Welsh national side - which by most normal conventions of international sport shouldn't even exist.

However, once the game is over, their Welshness disappears and they don't think about it too much.

That's why "Ninety Minute Nationalist" is adopted as a pejorative. To the hard nationalist, the position is nonsensical, as Welsh culture should be – and is – linked not only to national identity, but political nationalism. To use footballing terms, 90 minute nationalists are seen as glory hunters and armchair fans, while nationalists are season ticket holders and will question anyone not seen to be pulling their weight. Similarly, from the opposite end, hardcore royalists might have similar suspicions of of Celtic republicans.

Things become a lot more complicated when you come to ethnic minorities, who are cited as feeling more British than white ethnicities, despite coming from cultures and backgrounds which are very different and contribute to the "melting pot" of Welsh and British society. Ethnic minorities might see adopting "Britishness" as a safer option, as Englishness in England has been claimed by the far-right - though that's starting to change.

Even the most ardent unionist can support Welsh independence
for 90 minutes - plus time to chug a beer or two.
(Pic : City School of Languages)

Being stuck in the middle might be a sign of cultural apathy and no real strong connection to either pole than a cultural identity in itself.

I was born in a former colony, have an Irish surname, support an English football team, haven't read much Welsh literature and most of my favourite authors and books are American. I don't speak much Welsh and I've listen to more Norwegian and German music.

In cultural terms, I should be about as British as they come or don't have a cultural identity at all, placing me somewhere slap bang in the middle. Based on that alone I probably have more in common with the Lib Dems and Greens than Plaid Cymru.

Yet I'm still one of the more prominent hard nationalists and supporters of Welsh independence out there. I can only relate to this from my own anecdotal experiences, but far from nationalism being solely about identity issues, it clearly goes a lot, lot deeper.

You can like British culture and still be a Welsh nationalist. Likewise, you can even live and breathe Wales in everything you do and still be a British nationalist. Look at the some of the Tories.

Political Ideology & The Constitution

(Click to enlarge)

I suppose this is the meat when it comes to nationalism and national identity. It mostly manifests itself as support (or lack of) for varying levels of self-determination, without which a nation can't exist.

At either end, you're going to have the fanatical nationalists - people who are exclusively and stridently Welsh or British. On the Welsh side, they'd support independence by any means necessary, and completely reject Britishness. On the British side, they'll show an antagonism towards any outward sign of "Welshness" and would equally support the union by any means necessary. You're talking Northern Irish paramilitary groups, historical figures like Owain Glyndwr and protest organisations. So they're thin on the ground, if they even exist at all in modern Wales.

A step down from that at either end would be those who support Welsh independence on both an ethnic and civic basis, and those who oppose all forms of devolution – but would stop short of violent direct action, just be very, very vocal about it.

There are differences between between ethnic and civic nationalism . The former is generally seen as more right-wing because it links blood to soil, while the latter is bog-standard social democracy with extra flags, and has pretty much been adopted by all the main parties in Wales to varying degrees.

I probably count as an "8" – a civic nationalist who supports independence more strongly than mainstream opinion and perhaps stronger than Plaid Cymru. Such people are often called "hard/dry nationalists".

The vast, vast majority of people will fall somewhere in the middle. This includes those who are civic nationalists but don't support independence strongly (Plaid Cymru in general). Also, "wet nationalist" Home Rulers who support further devolution or a form of federalism and consider themselves happy to be Welsh – this would include the likes of David Melding AM (Con, South Wales Central).

Welsh Labour are arguably slap bang in the middle – they're happy with devolution as it is, and are open to more powers, but would fall short of federalism, considering themselves both "Welsh & British". Yet, as the census figures paradoxically show, being "Welsh & British" is something of a minority thing and enjoys less support than Welsh independence. So playing up dual-identity is unlikely to win support on its own. It looks like, quite frankly, nobody cares if they're Welsh or British when it comes to politics, unless they're already a nationalist.

Also lurking are the devo-sceptics (or devo-realists), who think devolution has gone far enough. They perhaps consider themselves more British than Welsh (but will play up the Welshness when it suits them) and would likely oppose further powers, but not the principle of limited self-determination as a compromise. I'd image the Conservative grass roots would be found here, as would many Old Labour and Labour MPs.

(Click on Wales)

It's worth noting this perceived spread of nationalism within parties as it can cause problems. Plaid and UKIP are fairly obvious candidates to be placed at either end – one a Welsh nationalist party, the other a British nationalist party. The Lib Dems have historically been "Home Rule" party so are fairly easy to place too.

But even within those parties, there are going to be differences. Dafydd Elis-Thomas AM (Plaid, Dwyfor Meirionnydd) is clearly a Lib Dem style "Home Ruler", while UKIP have come around to tolerating the Assembly's existence.

People who consider themselves "internationalists/citizens of the world" might often fall under British nationalism too because they support the status quo by default. The Green Party of EnglandandWales  gives the impression of having quite a few of these - and have really struggled to adapt to post-devolution Wales, despite being officially federalist - so are arguably closer to UKIP than Plaid in terms of nationalism, but not general ideology.

Having said all this, it's worth being careful in strictly equating levels of support for independence with nationalism. If there were a Welsh independence referendum tomorrow, with no underlying case along the same lines as Scotland's Future, even I'd vote no. It's one thing to support something superficially, it's another thing entirely to check the details - and there are plenty of details on Welsh independence that need to be ironed out if a realistic case is ever going to be made.

Although it's true that you can't eat a flag, they can make very good tablecloths for a skilled chef.

Nationalists shouldn't get too despondent about low levels of support for independence, as all the foundations are there for a sudden change in opinion given the right circumstances. However, it's off the menu for now and we should perhaps learn to accept it and play the long game. Many hard nationalists might not like the idea of Plaid sidelining independence, but they're broadly right to do so.

Likewise, unionists shouldn't get complacent about high levels of support for the Union, which is perhaps all head and no heart. Technocratic arguments about finance and borders will only get you so far. As the Scottish independence campaign is proving, heads can be turned and the positive case for union is – in some areas - built on sand.

You're going to cause controversy in politics when you try to mix the three identities or try and stamp a single one on people.

One of the most important modern human virtues is tolerance. Tolerating something doesn't mean have to like or accept it. You should just respect that some people are going to have different ideas and values from you. When we can all tolerate something or someone you don't like, without resorting to smears or hyperbole, it's a sign our society is starting to mature and our media along with it.

Read More

Carwyn's constitutional conundrum

The First Minister has once again gone into some detail on his ideas for
devolution and the impact of the Scottish independence referendum.
(Pic : BBC)

Last week, First Minister Carwyn Jones gave a lecture on devolution and the possible ramifications of the Scottish independence referendum at a conference organised by Cardiff University's Wales Governance Centre and UK Changing Union.

A transcript (and video) of the First Minister's lecture is available on Click on Wales.

This isn't the first time he's made his thoughts known on this. However, for those of you who can't be bothered, here's a condensed version :

Silk Commission Part I

• The Welsh Government seeks full implementation of Silk Part I (borrowing powers, devolution of smaller taxes, income tax variation [subject to a referendum]) and are waiting for a formal response from the UK Government, which has been significantly delayed.
• If any legislation is to be passed this Westminster term, then the response will need to be made "this autumn", quipping that he hopes the UK Government don't claim "autumn" stretches to the winter solstice.
• Silk I shows Scotland that devolution is flexible enough so their aspirations can be met within the Union, implying he would be willing to campaign for the Union in Scotland depending on the UK Government's response to Silk.

Post-referendum negotiations

• Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, there would need to be negotiations between the Scottish Government and the rest of the UK. If there's a yes-vote, it would be on the terms of independence; a no-vote would be on "terms of continued membership".
• The constituent nations should have a say in any negotiations in their own right because of different responsibilities for public services.

The future of the Union

• The Union is in need of reform to make devolution "more of an event than a process", ending ad-hoc tinkering with the constitution.
• Reforms should complement each other, possibly leading to a codified (written) constitution.
• There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the two Welsh laws that have been referred to the Supreme Court (Bylaws Bill & Agricultural Sector Bill). Scotland and Northern Ireland haven't been subject to the same levels of scrutiny because they have reserved powers - and that should apply to Wales too.
• There's justification for different devolution settlements (asymmetrical devolution) due to "our different relationships with England", but they should be underpinned with three key principles for devolution across the UK:
• 1. Respect for the devolved legislatures – A constitutionally-guaranteed right for them to exist. No legislature should "have to rely on the goodwill of another legislature for its existence". Only the devolved legislatures should be able to vote themselves out of existence.
• 2. Parity of structure – A reserved powers model for Wales in line with Scotland and Northern Ireland, defining what the National Assembly cannot do instead of what it can. The powers themselves would be dependent on the individual circumstances in each country.
• 3. A presumption in favour of devolution – "Decisions about Wales should be taken in Wales" unless there's a wider UK interest at stake. It should apply to England too. By calling for more devolved powers he "has public opinion on his side".
• "Cross border issues" aren't a reason to hold back devolution due to the track record of "sensible management arrangements for such issues....and goodwill and good sense on both sides."
• The English shouldn't be lectured on devolution, but he looks forward to the UK Government's response to the the McKay Commission.

What Carwyn said makes some sense. I think he got the key principles of devolution right and that should also be codified in a written constitution, agreed between the UK's legislatures following any negotiations after a no-vote.

The problem with that is the fact the UK constitution isn't set in stone gives it the sort of flexibility it requires in order to be able to function. Changing that for the sake of codifying it could be an administrative nightmare as you have hundreds of years of laws, conventions and statutes to pile through.

There were some other things I'd pick up on too.

Firstly, I don't understand the excitement in Cardiff Bay about Silk I. The the powers are insultingly small time, and a no vote in any future income tax referendum looks tempting because it doesn't go far enough. Silk II – relating to devolved powers - is going to be more interesting (in my opinion).

Secondly, parity of structure should only come with parity of powers. If "cross border issues" shouldn't affect devolution in Carwyn's own words, neither should the "relationship with England."

Asymmetrical devolution doesn't work because it underpins a union of unequals. It could well have played a part in the Supreme Court call-ins because Wales lacks a legal jurisdiction, and an awful lot of things are run on an EnglandandWales basis for the sake of historical convention - like the Agricultural Wages Board.

We'll still be asking, whenever policy outpaces powers, "Why has Scotland/Northern Ireland/Greater London/Isle of Man got powers over X, while Wales only has Y."

Then there's the elephant in the room everyone's keen to ignore : England. It's a well-trodden point, but a union where one member state makes up 85% of the population (and has even greater economic power) isn't a "union", it's a hegemony. Devolution merely prevents the "Celtic fringe" being squashed.

Attempts to address this – like an elected upper chamber with equal representation of the nations – will go down like a lead balloon in Westminster as there's too much vested interest in maintaining the status quo. That's why constitutional changes take forever, or just don't happen full stop at UK level.

The Welsh line of thinking

There are plenty of views on devolution's future, with a  broad
consensus that regardless of the referendum result things
will need to be reformed one way or another.

The First Minister isn't the only person who's had their say. Click on Wales have been mulling over the possible consequences of the independence referendum on Wales on-off since August.

Deputy Llywydd David Melding (Con, South Wales Central) has put a lot of thought into this, writing a book – The Reformed Union – outlining his ideas for a federal United Kingdom, which was serialised over the past year. He's said too much on it for me to go into any detail now, but in his latest piece he argues that the UK has to adopt the "bilingual nationalism" (Welsh & British) that works in Wales.

His problem – which he acknowledges to be fair - is that the majority of people in Wales reject British national identity, whether they're political unionists or not. That doesn't mean the Union is in any danger, but maybe "the ties that bind" aren't as strong as unionists like to think (and the opposite case for nationalists too).

Welsh Lib Dem leader, Kirsty Williams, talks up the Silk I proposals, arguing that regional governments could be better placed to deliver on economic development than central governments (if the right economic levers are devolved), citing a report from Michael Heseltine. She doesn't elaborate on what levers though.

Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood, argued that regardless of the outcome of the independence referendum, the relationships between the UK's constituent nations would change. She agrees with  the First Minister about Wales having a say in any post-referendum negotiations, but expands that to the "British Isles" (presumably including the Republic of Ireland and Crown Dependencies) and proposes something modelled on the Nordic Council (which has both sovereign and non-sovereign members) with high-level co-operation in areas of mutual interest.

That might - on the surface - appear to be a rejection of independence. I don't think it is. It's pretty clever, perhaps necessary, as it would lock the "social union" in as a permanent feature, all former UK nations retaining links that wouldn't disappear regardless of the constitution future of those nations.

Wales : A Mouse in the Room

Despite the desire for Wales to play a role in post-referendum
negotiations, are we still on the fringes of this debate?
(Pic : The Scotsman)

People think there are two strands to Welsh Labour opinion on devolution - for or against - but there are probably at least three.

The first follow Carwyn's lead : more powers for Wales up to a certain point and on the Welsh Government's terms. I'd suspect most, if not all, Labour AMs follow this tract or the First Minister wouldn't be saying the things he's been saying.

The second group are "reluctant converts" to devolution and could be persuaded either way. I suspect a chunk of Welsh Labour's grassroots and supporters would fall into this category (as long as Labour are in power in Cardiff).

The third are ideological unionists who are sceptical about further devolution regardless of what official policy is, or because they aren't impressed with performances so far. Carwyn's problem is that most of Labour's Welsh MPs have historically fallen into this category, and he desperately needs someone in Westminster Labour to make his case there.

That's because the problem any Welsh politician has when mulling over the constitution is that the only politicians more anonymous than them at UK level are the Northern Irish Assembly (unless it involves The Troubles legacy in some way) and Cornish nationalists.

Nobody who can set Carwyn's or David Melding's plans in motion cares what they think. The most they'll get is a patronising pat on the head that any proposals they come up with would be taken under advisement.

Westminster listens to Alex Salmond because he's a threat to the status quo and known UK-wide (for better or for worse). They might even pay more attention to ministers and shadow ministers with Welsh responsibilities. However, those are junior roles at Westminster, while ministers with those briefs have hardly rung the endorsements for further devolution or federalism (even if the likes of David Jones, Peter Hain and Cheryl Gillan are/were walking adverts for independence).

It was telling that Douglas Alexander's recent thoughts on possible no-vote negotiations didn't mention Wales, Northern Ireland or federalism at all – days after Carwyn's lecture - despite the First Minister being only senior Labour personality who's discussed reforms in any detail.

So although the future of the United Kingdom as a nation state will be decided in Scotland for the time being, the aftermath of the likely no-vote will be decided between Holyrood and Westminster too - not the nations.

Wales should by rights have a seat at that negotiating table, but it's probably best the First Minister - and the rest of the "Bay Bubble" - turn their attentions to things they can actually control and influence for now.

It's not their fault, but it's better than the undignified sight of Carwyn, Kirsty, Leanne, David etc. talking to a brick wall.

Read More

"Devo-wuh?" Young attitudes towards Welsh devolution

Last week, Changing Union published a short but sweet report authored by Prof. Roger Scully entitled "Attitudes of Young People towards devolution". You can read it in English here (pdf) and Welsh here (pdf).

There's a Click on Wales piece from one of Changing Union's co-ordinators, Lleu Williams, and a post on Cardiff University's Elections in Wales blog from Prof. Scully himself, challenging some of the headlines resulting from this. It's perhaps been overshadowed by the Silk Commission poll - more on that from Syniadau.

The Findings

The report compares data relating to two age groups across a few different surveys : 18-35 year olds ("young voters") and over-35s.

• Both age groups broadly support more powers for the Assembly or the status quo, with the young more likely to support the status quo and older voters further powers.
• Support for both abolishing devolution and independence fell sharply in both age groups since 1997. More over-35s prefer scrapping devolution (~17%) compared to 18-35s (12%).
• A majority of older voters think the Assembly has the most influence over decisions in Wales (55%) compared to the young (41-42%). 20% of young voters "Don't Know", compared to less than 10% of over-35s.
• A majority across both age groups believe the Assembly ought to have the most influence over health, education, policing and criminal justice, with stronger support amongst older voters.
• Similar percentages across both age groups support tax powers for the Assembly (~37%).
• There's greater support for more powers - and significantly greater support for independence - amongst both age groups in Scotland compared to Wales. The percentage of "Don't Knows" with regard constitutional choices is similar in both countries across both age groups.

The Conclusions

The report's obvious one is that there's "lower levels of engagement amongst the young", reflected in "lower rates of voter turnout" and "less certainty" in their views on devolution. We knew that anyway, it's a long-standing problem.

There are other conclusions too. Based on policy influence preferences - and backed by the Silk Commission poll this week - there's strong support for further Assembly powers across the board, falling short of independence, with little appetite to turn back the clock. That hints that the Assembly has "established itself" as an institution.

On the lack of enthusiasm for devolution amongst many young people, The Western Mail's reaction was slightly hysterical. Support for independence is softer amongst the young than you might expect, but clearly there in abundance in the case of further powers.

It makes sobering reading for both devo-abolitionists, and nationalists who support independence like myself. Both groups are significantly out of step with public opinion - but I guess we knew that anyway. Unlike devo-abolitionists though, I think those of us in the latter category can live with a more powerful Assembly. If nationalists play the long game, we'll win.

A lot's been said about "what" and "how" on youth apathy, so I think it's worth turning to the "why". For once, I speak with a little authority as I fall within that "young voter" category.

Getting to know "Generation Y"

To understand why "we" (18-35 year olds) aren't bothering with politics, it's worth understanding what Generation Y - roughly those born between 1980-1999 - are like as a whole.

Vain – We're often dubbed "narcissists" and "entitled". I don't think that's necessarily true, but we are image conscious and individualistic. We think we need to be seen to live a certain lifestyle. We like to brag, and feel smug about making surface-deep "right choices" in clothes, lifestyles, technology etc. In politics, this translates into backing popular and charismatic individuals over parties.

Insecure - Unless you're settled with a decent job or family, the vanity hides an insecurity. We've taken the biggest hits from the recession. We're not going to get the same levels of retirement support as our parents and grandparents. Also, as a whole, we're trying to find a sense of generational purpose, with many living an extended adolescence. We might feel let down by politicians/politics, considering we've been guinea pigs for many of their reforms to schools, universities, housing and the economy - especially from the Thatcher and Blair years.

Mobile – We lack real job security so tend to change employer often. We travel more, and are generally (but not always) more willing to live in rented accommodation for long periods. We still have "roots" as that's a Welsh characteristic, but we don't live by it. We like flexible working, doing things on the move, and we don't sit down to watch the news or read newspapers. Everything is instant, and we're – on the whole - uncertain decision-makers because we're constantly bombarded with information in our jobs and free time.

Tech-savvy – "Nerd" and "geek" are more positive labels than they've been in the past. We live a lot of our lives through the internet, gadgets and mobile phones. It makes us think we're all connected and "social", but it hides a loneliness too. This doesn't mean we're good at science and engineering either, it just means most modern technology is user-friendly. Modern politics isn't.

Time rich, cash poor – One of the reasons I'm doing this blog is because it's free. People my age are rather boring, unlikely to produce any great counter-culture, adopt "retro" trends because we lack originality, all whilst focusing on someone else's idea of style over our own creativity. Politics is seen as highly-focused and intensive, and not something worth bothering with unless you have ambitions of actually becoming a politician. There are plenty of other things we can do with our time.

Politics without ideology – Perhaps by being the first post-Cold War generation we see politics as a series of "issues" and "causes" that need fixing rather than a clash between left and right. People still fighting the Cold War at this age – as I once did – stick out like a sore thumb. We're mainly socially liberal, so don't tolerate "bans" and "restrictions", but more ambiguous on economic policy - perhaps even slightly conservative. If we vote in larger numbers as we get older, we're going to be a politician's nightmare as we'll be impossible to please.

Why might some young voters blank devolution?

You can picture the youth of Wales getting as excited about a referendum
for the National Assembly to vary income taxes by 10p, can't you?
(Pic : salon.com)

We've been let down too – Younger people are as likely to be dissatisfied with how Welsh devolution turned out as older people. Bungs like tuition fee changes, EMAs and apprenticeships will only go so far. We're concerned with bigger issues like health, education (if we want to have children of our own) as well as things like transport and the economy.  We just won't admit it, as we know we won't be listened to - which can be very embarrassing seeing as we're adults.

We didn't vote or campaign for devolution, it's just "there" – Today's 35 year old would've been 19 at the time of the 1997 referendum. Today's 18-24 year olds will barely remember the time before devolution. I'd only just turned 13, and I don't recall if I had an opinion on it. Today's Wales was born from 60s and 70s activism, so younger people won't share a similar "spiritual/emotional connection" to devolution as those who campaigned for or against it. To us, it's a national institution that we grew up with in the background. It's nothing special, sacred or unique. Nor is it an abomination that undermines traditions.

We don't understand it – This shows up in the report as a high percentage of "Don't Knows" on the question of the Assembly's levels of influence and constitutional preferences.

That might be because young people are - like some older folks - unclear on what the Assembly does and what its powers are. Those things are hard to explain to audiences who lack any pre-existing political interest or knowledge. It's still - despite the 2011 referendum - quite technical. The Assembly might not be considered powerful enough to get too interested or involved with, whilst there's also the problem of the Assembly not being "seen" full stop.

It's boring, and any coverage we do get is cynical - Politics is supposed to be boring as that's how mistakes get ironed out. With many distractions, it's hard to get passionate about law-making, committee reports and public service performances.

For example, the Assembly's integrated transport inquiry was excellent and I think I did an OK job of whittling 60-odd pages to under 2,000 words. I received ten times the focus for a non-story about hotels a few weeks later.

Consider yourselves "lucky" I still cover things like laws, policies and committee reports. If I were dependant on maintaining regular high levels of interest, I would've dropped them and concentrated on character assassinations, conspiracy theories and gossip. That's clearly where interest lies, except the problem is that none of that stuff is "politics" nor actually relevant to anything.

We're disenchanted with politics - It's more correct to say young people are "disenchanted" (disappointed with what it is) rather than "disengaged". We do get excited about "single-issue causes" and "grand issues",  just not traditional party and institutional politics. That's probably for the same reasons as older people, or we grew up with such a cloud of cynicism hanging over politics that we just absorbed it as we got older.

The only "grand issue" in Wales is never-ending constitutional masturbation surrounding the Assembly's powers. I've said it several times, but even I don't get excited about that. I consider it tedious, bordering on an insult to our intelligence. We will be back here again and again and again until we have parity with Scotland at least.

We didn't get that in 1997. We didn't get it from the Richard Commission. We didn't get that in 2006 or 2011. You can see that I don't have high hopes for Silk.
It could all be done in 3 years, but we'll be waiting 30.

That's one reason why I would describe myself as "disenchanted". Ask others my age, and you'll probably get hundreds of different reasons.

We're under-represented – This is our own fault for not voting in large numbers, not registering to vote and not standing in elections. However, that's mainly because of disenchantment, lack of interest and seeing it as something for aspiring "career politicians", not ordinary people. I hardly know anybody my age – internet aside - who's a member of a party, movement or an active member of a trade union. Based on Welsh demographics, the Assembly should have at least 9 AMs aged 35 or under. There's one.

What can be done?

 Generation Y's politicians will think of it as a career - not a public service - and will
be thin on the ground. We may as well accept it, as it's better than nothing.
(Pic : British Youth Council)

Not much if I'm completely honest. But there's hope.

It's unscientific, but my Facebook page reach (those who see the posts) hints that the majority (66%) of this blog's readers are – bucking the trend – aged between 18 and 44 (those aged 25-34 the biggest subgroup) with a roughly 55-45 split in favour of men. Page "likes" are similar in terms of demographics, but with an one-sided 80-20 split in favour of men.

I'm not surprised that it's mainly "the boys" who will openly admit to reading/liking this blog, and I suspect 90%+ of the people who leave comments are male too. However, I'm glad women do see/read it as I hope it's seen as relevant to everyone.

I suspect many are political anoraks, activists or party workers in some shape or form. So there is interest amongst young voters, the problem's that they're likely in the "political bubble" anyway.

We have our youth parliamentary organisation – Funky Dragon – and many local councils have youth councils and mayors. That's fine, but I don't think going out and "nagging" young people to be interested in politics and devolution "for their own good" is going to work.
The single biggest fix is more young candidates in "proper government", not farmed off into "yoof parliaments" and student councils. Bridgend, for example, elected at least three councillors aged 35 or under in 2012 : Luke Ellis (Lab, Pyle), Ross Thomas (Lab, Maesteg West) - who's since become Mayor of Maesteg - and Hailey Townsend (Lab, Brackla). So it can be done organically without any positive discrimination.

Of course, those of us interested/involved in politics are going to say it's the most important thing in the world. If politicians and outreach workers are struggling to make it sound relevant and interesting, then the simplest answer is that Welsh politics just isn't relevant and interesting full stop.

Welsh politics is, quite often, painful to follow for its grinding processes and limp outcomes - not the performance of politicians themselves, who I don't have a issue with and who have a tough enough job as it is. They can only work with what they've got and can't perform miracles.

One day, those currently aged 18-35 are going to inherit the country. You better be damned sure we're interested enough to care, or there'll be a vacuum and I dread to think what will fill it.

Read More