Continuing the “Devil’s Advocate” series – looking closer at some of the arguments which will be, or are being, used against Welsh independence – I turn to perhaps the oldest one of the lot.
It’s a point of view that’s always been popular to a certain degree – though you can make the argument that it’s become less popular in the last few years – and it’s that devolution proves that independence would be a big mistake.
The performance of the Senedd and successive Welsh governments is a trailer for what life post-independence could be like (until significant changes are made or not made), so you would expect it to form the bulk of any future anti-independence campaign. The only other argument that’s stronger is the economic/fiscal/subsidy one.
The question is, “Is that argument as strong as it used to be?” There will always be people unhappy or even angry with what the Welsh Government and Senedd are doing – which is what makes it a good argument. It falls down slightly because those inclined to think that way would form the bulk of anti-independence (and anti-devolution) sentiment in the first place. It’s not really a middle ground argument anymore as it’s increasingly tied to so-called “muscular unionism” and anti-devolution rhetoric which has gradually lost its effectiveness. There’s a risk that the same thing has happened in the independence movement over the last year too. If those with the answers only ever exist on the fringes of politics, then it’s unlikely that they’ll ever get to ask the questions they want to ask.
If you go into politics expecting to please everyone you won’t achieve anything either. Devolution has delivered to a certain degree. It’s just the big structural issues that remain stubbornly hard to fix. You could argue Wales needs more powers to fix big structural issues (you can’t deal with poverty without control over welfare, for example), but just as equally argue that the powers that have already been devolved haven’t made much of a difference, so why would independence be any better? Cynical perhaps, but with a grain of truth to it.
Another far better argument than some of the ones put forward is the big jump – in terms of civil society and the civil service – from devolution to independence. If devolution is League One, independence would be the Premier League. It’s the big boy and girl stuff that even the UK doesn’t get right.
Although the Senedd is likely to be expanded soon, independence would certainly require a larger parliament. Those opposed to independence could make multiple arguments related to that: “We’d end up spending more money”, “we’d be run by poor quality politicians”, “Cardiff Bay will be focusing on itself at the expense of the rest of us” etc.
There’s a counter-argument that you need more politicians and civil servants to improve scrutiny, but that’s unlikely to play well amongst those who don’t think there’s much high-quality scrutiny going on at the moment.
Do we, in all honesty, have the right people and processes in place to cope with that jump from devolution to independence?
It would be as disruptive a process as Brexit, if not more so. The problem is that while this is the type of argument that would get the commentariat excited enough to pick big holes in pro-independence arguments, it’s unlikely to be one that’s well understood on the doorstep unless it’s translated into messages that can cause fear and uncertainty (as happened in Scotland in 2014).
Labour’s dominance of politics in Wales entrenches Conservative and other right-wing support against independence – but that was a given as, with very few exceptions, the right is generally Unionist anyway. Other then pointing out their own party’s electoral failures in Wales, citing Labour’s political dominance as an argument against independence would just be preaching to the choir. So it’s not a particularly strong argument in itself.
The better argument would be to focus on the political establishment, the perceived lack of accountability, the failures of scrutiny, the lack of challenge and the lack of any real “cause and effect” in Welsh politics.
The belief that Wales doesn’t or shouldn’t exist as a political entity will have varying degrees too.
At the one end will be the British nationalists who don’t consider Wales to exist on anything other than a cultural sense (if that). At the other end, you would have people who believe in some measure of self-government for Wales ranging from a tightly controlled administrative devolution (like the old Wales Office) through to confederalism – all whilst still rejecting independence.
You would assume that most of the people that would hold devolution up as an argument against independence would be less likely to support any form of Welsh self-government in the first place. So their mind is made up and that argument may not work to convince the majority of people in the middle – who support at least some level of self-governance – that independence would be a bad idea outright. It has to be more sophisticated and Welsh Labour’s soft-nationalism, pro-Union-reform platform is a far better vehicle against independence than “devolution bad; nats are mad”. The problem is that promises on Union reform and respecting devolution almost always get broken (“The Vow” in 2014) and a lot of people have seen through it. There are only so many times you can play the “reform the UK” card without delivering.
