Here’s another edition of this series of “looking at arguments against Welsh independence/Owen creates a strawman”.
Today, I’ll look at the belief that there are too many problems facing the world for Wales to consider independence – whether that’s at this particular moment in time or ever.
Some of the most commonly-used logical fallacies fall under the category of “fallacies of relevance”; some of the most popular ones used in modern politics being “red herrings” and “whataboutery”. Every single politician, political party, lobbyist, activist, journalist etc. uses them. I’ve done it. You’ve probably done it.
It’s where you attempt to discredit, or distract from, the main topic of discussion by either bringing in another topic entirely (that you may deem to be more important or relevant) or pointing out possible hypocrisy.
Most importantly, just because an argument may use a logical fallacy it doesn’t mean it’s wrong, just poorly argued.
One problem that’s emerged in the Welsh independence movement recently is the clash between supporters who would prefer to secure independence first (and have no strong views on what should or must happen) and supporters who would prefer to have a definitive policy position or vision beforehand.
In this particular case – where you’re looking at medium-to-long-term strategic problems – it clearly favours those indy supporters who say “we need a clear vision”. All too often it’s been dismissed as trouble-making or “politicising” because it comes across as a red herring or whataboutery even if that’s not the intention.
My belief has always been that it’s better to present options and scenarios. You then let people make their own minds up on the best way forward and leave the detailed policymaking to lawmakers and experts. That’s “we need a clear vision” just approached slightly differently.
When it comes to independence, the problem arises when shortlisting the best options, or automatically assuming that the option you agree with is the best one and must be implemented.
So one of the biggest arguments in favour of independence – that we have the right to choose political policies to suit our own needs and political will – can be a drawback if you can’t agree on the way forward and if you have different priorities.
There’s no single best way to address climate change, energy security, mental health, public service delivery etc. and that has the potential to create uncertainty – which helps those arguing against independence. They can at least point to the status quo and offer some certainty – even if that certainty isn’t great in itself.
Many of these things can’t be fixed in Wales alone or by Wales acting alone either. The world arguably needs fewer borders and much more cooperation to address big global challenges.
It’s often said that you should “think globally, act locally” but on an issue such as climate change and decarbonisation we now need to “act globally and locally”. Independence becomes far more relevant on the “acting locally” bit.
Even with devolution, there are whole swathes of policy areas in which Wales can’t act. More often than not, we’re left waiting for the UK Government to act on our behalf when their interests may not match what’s in our best interests (or at a more basic level, what we vote for).
Some of those policy areas – energy, welfare, financial regulations, employment law, criminal justice, human rights, broadcasting and the media, immigration, trade policy, foreign policy, defence and others – are absolutely vital when it comes to addressing those “more important than independence” issues listed earlier.
You could make the case that the UK has more clout – diplomatic, financial and political – and therefore should take the lead in certain things, but the last few years have proven that’s not necessarily the case anymore.
