Random Stuff!!

[Jerry]

What do you think the negative aspects of independence would be?

In general I don't think there is any, Wales making it's own decisions can only be postive. Only concern that I would have is more strategic in that due to Wales geographical position it relies heavily on imports and exports coming via or through England from other parts of the world but that is something that can be changed to lessen that reliance over time.

 

[KARFA]

None? Incredible.

 

[Jerry]

None? Incredible.

Why would there be? Being an independent country is normal.
Would you ask the same question about Iceland or Ireland or Norway or Finland or Estonia? Whether them having independence from Denmark, UK, Sweden and Russia has negatives? What about Canada, Australia and New Zealand? Is there negatives for them running there own affairs and the UK not having any say in how they do it? What about India? Should Greece be back under Turkish rule?

 

[KARFA]

There are some very obvious points in your comparisons - they all relate to colonies/occupied countries. Wales is not occupied by the UK, and is a part of the UK with representation in the UK parliament.

However, if you are going to invoke the principle of self determination of course, we have to look at what the Welsh people actually want. As we have discussed already, the vast majority of Welsh do not want independence by a margin of 2 to 1. A referendum held now would not be a vote for independence, and going back to 2013 there has never been anything close to a majority in favour.

Let us respect the will of the Welsh then and respect they do not want independence.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

There are some very obvious points in your comparisons - they all relate to colonies/occupied countries. Wales is not occupied by the UK, and is a part of the UK with representation in the UK parliament.

However, if you are going to invoke the principle of self determination of course, we have to look at what the Welsh people actually want. As we have discussed already, the vast majority of Welsh do not want independence by a margin of 2 to 1. A referendum held now would not be a vote for independence, and going back to 2013 there has never been anything close to a majority in favour.

Let us respect the will of the Welsh then and respect they do not want independence.

When it suits them governments row against the tide of public opinion as was the case with the Blair Government in 1997. Within four months of coming to power it provided the Welsh electorate with an opportunity via a referendum to say whether it wished to have a National Assembly. A previous referendum on the subject in 1979 brought a resounding 'No' on a scale of four to one against the idea from the 59% of the electorate that voted.

In 1997 559,419 (50.3%) voted for an Assembly with 552,698 (49.7%) voting against. As the matter was to be decided on a straight majority of those who voted a majority of 6,721 voters was enough to see the Assembly come into being. However, at that time interest in Wales was such that only 50.22% of the electorate bothered to vote, so taking that into account only 25.17% of the 2,222,533 registered electorate voted 'Yes'.

The Westminster Labour Government was trying to pre-empt any thought of an independence movement gaining ground by offering Wales a form of devolution even though the appetite for self-determination in the country then was thin, as it was in 1979. Looking across the estuary from England there seems little doubt that the independence movement has grown since those days although, and I doubt that even the most committed nationalist would deny it, at the moment it is still a substantial minority in Wales.

How that might change if Scotland gained its independence leaving a de facto Union of England and Wales (and also Northern Ireland if there is not a united Ireland by then) remains to be seen.

 

[Jerry]

There are some very obvious points in your comparisons - they all relate to colonies/occupied countries. Wales is not occupied by the UK, and is a part of the UK with representation in the UK parliament.

That strictly not true when it comes to Wales. Wales was conquered, occupied, colonised and eventually annexed by England, it's participation in the union isn't voluntary and it's being part of the union doesn't mean it's good for Wales and as for the representation if every Welsh MP say voted against say the damming of a valley to provide water to Liverpool English and Scottish MPs can still vote that through against the wishes of the Welsh MPs. Which actually did happen in the 60s.
Just because at the moment the people in Wales don't want independence doesn't mean we can't argue for it and put the argument forward and what Welsh people have voted for is more devolution yet many people including the current UK government don't seem to be respecting that. There was a referendum about more powers in 2011 and the vote was yes for (63%) that yet powers like APD, more tax raising powers, policing and justice (despite Manchester and London having control of police) haven't been devolved and despite all polls saying that the Welsh people are happy with devolution the UK government calls it a disaster and a recent UK paper said it should be scrapped.

 

[aviatorconcorde]

But still unionist and a lot of these articles always seem to base their predictions of Scotlands and Wales finances and economics as part of the UK despite the fact that independence means everything will be different because being independent changes both countries fiscal powers.

No they are actually assets and as Theresa May stated England needs them. But the reality is that Wales Scotland and England aren't normal countries and the relationship is nothing like the EU because the EU is made of independent countries. I personally wish the relationship was like the EU as it would mean Wales is an independent country.

Well that would be individual choice but the way you seem to frame that is as if England and its people are just better than Wales and the Welsh. I'm pretty sure Wales has a lot of skilled and dedicated people that business can tap into.
As for freedom of movement obviously we don't know what will happen but Ireland is in a common travel area with the UK so that could be just continued.

No. I’m a proud Welshman but like to think as myself as a realist. The economic damage on Scotland would be huge, the economic damage on Wales will be astronomical. We have already left one successful economic union, why on earth would we want to leave another one! There are many things wrong with the UK as there are with the EU but i still would of to remain.

I was born in Wales and my mum is from Wales. I am a massive Welsh rugby fan and a hater of the english team of course, but I can clearly see England is the economic powerhouse compared to Wales. No way is England better than Wales and no way do I try to frame that England is anyway better apart from economically. It is not the fault of any citizen it is like that but only successive governments.

There is no guarantee at all we will get Freedom of movement of people with England. If Independent Wales and Scotland wants the EU it gets mandatory Schengen which is not compatible with the Common Travel area. Wales would lose its freedom of movement with Ireland! Also, Will i need travel insurance to go to England to see my family? It’s just all a fantasy land.

don’t be fooled, a divorce of the UK from the EU is a walk in the park compared to a Scotland/Wales divorce from the UK.

 

[aviatorconcorde]

In general I don't think there is any, Wales making it's own decisions can only be postive. Only concern that I would have is more strategic in that due to Wales geographical position it relies heavily on imports and exports coming via or through England from other parts of the world but that is something that can be changed to lessen that reliance over time.

There’s benefits to leaving the EU but look how that turned out - shouldn’t we be learning lessons?

and for clarity, in reference to your previous comments about how countries should know their place, I do believe that’s where the problem lies. Westminster and Constitutional reform. Half the Independence problem would evaporate overnight if these simple things were changed, but sadly we have a muppet in charge. Germany and Australia have very successful federal states and are very normal countries.

 

[Jerry]

The economic damage on Scotland would be huge, the economic damage on Wales will be astronomical.

It's interesting that recently I just watched a video about Estonia. They gained independence 30 years and their economy shut down over night with them exporting 95% of goods and services to the Soviet Union. Now Estonia GDP is 5 times what it was before independence and they are a leader in digital market as well as members of NATO and the EU not everything is perfect and they have their problems but what would they be like still under Russian rule?

There is no guarantee at all we will get Freedom of movement of people with England. If Independent Wales and Scotland wants the EU it gets mandatory Schengen which is not compatible with the Common Travel area. Wales would lose its freedom of movement with Ireland! Also, Will i need travel insurance to go to England to see my family? It’s just all a fantasy land.

There's no guarantee of anything we don't know what the future relationship would be but that's the same for in the union. With the UK government increasingly being British nationalists and doing more and more to undermine devolution who knows what Wales will be like under them in 10 year's time? But what seems evident to me is that many unionists in Wales don't see Wales in a positive light and fear separation from England we have that fear almost ingrained in our physce as a nation but Ireland proves there is life without being in a union with England. In the 50s Wales GDP was twice that of Ireland now Ireland is 4 times as high. It's exports were 85% to the UK now that's only 11%. With reference to the CTA if agreed with all parties there's no reason why an independent Wales wouldn't be able to continue in it and if Wales was ever to join the EU it could apply for a Schengen zone exemption as part of it's application and I think we also need to realise Scottish and Welsh and English independence which is what the breakup of the UK will be is a vastly different scenario to the UK leaving the EU. Yes many of the arguments are the same but the relationships post independence/breakup will be vastly different because they will need to be not just for Wales and Scotland but England.

Borders: Free Movement and the Common Travel Area – Scottish Centre on European Relations

Should Scotland leave the UK and look to apply to join the EU, could it remain part of the UK/Ireland Common Travel Area or would it have to join the Schengen area, that ensures frontier-free movement of EU citizens?

www.scer.scot

Westminster and Constitutional reform. Half the Independence problem would evaporate overnight if these simple things were changed, but sadly we have a muppet in charge. Germany and Australia have very successful federal states and are very normal countries.

It won't happen. Westminster isn't an institution that can be changed. Reform of the House of Lords has been talked about for 100 years, Labour wanted to introduce Proportional representation in the 80s but as soon as they got in power never did. A federal system would never work because the UK government would have to give up too much power to an English government which would have to admit equality with Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland and splitting England into regions would relegate Scotland and Wales to being regions and the Scots especially won't tolerate that. Australia and Germany are vastly different to the UK because they're not dominated by one nation.

10 years ago I used to think the same as you. Brexit, the APD saga and reading Welsh history and listening to the arguments for independence from the likes of YesCymru has persuaded me independence is the best way forward and like the Estonian people in the video I hope we will get to celebrate Wales independence day like they celebrate Estonian independence day.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I agree with Jerry that an English government would be impossible for the reasons he gives. If the UK was to adopt a true federal system the four home nations would have their own devolved governments with equal powers leaving the Westminster government responsible for such matters as Foreign Relations, Foreign Policy and Defence.

What we have at the moment is a British 'muddle through' with the the devolved nations' governments having varying degrees of power and responsibility compared one with another, invariably bestowed for pragmatic reasons by central government such as when the Cameron government in a panic about Scotland actually voting for independence in 2014 gave Holyrood more toys to play with.

If the rush for independence in Scotland appears to be reaching unstoppable proportions Westminster might well try the 'Devo Max' route where everything in that country except such matters as Foreign Policy and Relations and Defence is controlled by Scotland. Unless Wales and Northern Ireland were treated similarly that would widen further the gulf between between the WG's and the Scottish government's powers/responsibilities.

An alternative is to follow the Devo Max route with Wales and Northern Ireland as well. Currently there is no imperative for a Westminster Government to do that, especially with Wales.

If Devo Max was bestowed on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland that would leave England even more out on a limb with no government of its own.
The double majority system for new England-only bills at Westminster still leaves MPs from the other nations with a vote and, where there was a government with a small overall majority, potential England-only law could be blocked by MPs in the other home nations joining forces with English opposition MPs to defeat the bill even though there was a majority of English MPs in favour. Furthermore, non-English constituency MPs had a vote recently on the lockdown measures for England.

So short of abolishing the existing devolved governments or adopting a full federal system which would mean England having its own devolved government which has been discussed above, the governance of the UK would continue to be unevenly based and unsatisfactory.

Given the above, whoever is prime minister whether a muppet or not I don't see how an equitable solution satisfactory to all could be found. Because of that Independence will always be watching from the sidelines and in Scotland confidently making its way towards the centre of the stage.

 

[Jerry]

Given the above, whoever is prime minister whether a muppet or not I don't see how an equitable solution satisfactory to all could be found. Because of that Independence will always be watching from the sidelines and in Scotland confidently making its way towards the centre of the stage.

Even though I want an independent Wales I do think that if the UK government gave Wales full autonomy for all it's internal even including home defence and immigration powers and especially fiscal powers like issuing bonds i do think that the Welsh people would be in general happy with that for the next 30 years at least. Scotland I'm not so sure. I think they'd have to give Scotland more and make Scotland feel like a partner in the UK than just part of it.
But I don't see Westminster doing that as it would involve giving away a lot of powers.

 

[Jerry]

Well Wales beat Ireland today in Cardiff. I listened to it on the radio and it just sounded really odd without a crowd. Like I was listening to park rugby or something!

 

[aviatorconcorde]

I agree with Jerry that an English government would be impossible for the reasons he gives. If the UK was to adopt a true federal system the four home nations would have their own devolved governments with equal powers leaving the Westminster government responsible for such matters as Foreign Relations, Foreign Policy and Defence.

What we have at the moment is a British 'muddle through' with the the devolved nations' governments having varying degrees of power and responsibility compared one with another, invariably bestowed for pragmatic reasons by central government such as when the Cameron government in a panic about Scotland actually voting for independence in 2014 gave Holyrood more toys to play with.

If the rush for independence in Scotland appears to be reaching unstoppable proportions Westminster might well try the 'Devo Max' route where everything in that country except such matters as Foreign Policy and Relations and Defence is controlled by Scotland. Unless Wales and Northern Ireland were treated similarly that would widen further the gulf between between the WG's and the Scottish government's powers/responsibilities.

An alternative is to follow the Devo Max route with Wales and Northern Ireland as well. Currently there is no imperative for a Westminster Government to do that, especially with Wales.

If Devo Max was bestowed on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland that would leave England even more out on a limb with no government of its own.
The double majority system for new England-only bills at Westminster still leaves MPs from the other nations with a vote and, where there was a government with a small overall majority, potential England-only law could be blocked by MPs in the other home nations joining forces with English opposition MPs to defeat the bill even though there was a majority of English MPs in favour. Furthermore, non-English constituency MPs had a vote recently on the lockdown measures for England.

So short of abolishing the existing devolved governments or adopting a full federal system which would mean England having its own devolved government which has been discussed above, the governance of the UK would continue to be unevenly based and unsatisfactory.

Given the above, whoever is prime minister whether a muppet or not I don't see how an equitable solution satisfactory to all could be found. Because of that Independence will always be watching from the sidelines and in Scotland confidently making its way towards the centre of the stage.

i disagree a workable solution couldn’t be found. The US despite its problems, has 50 states all of different shapes, sizes, populations, cultures and economic development and they all seem to co exist as part of a union. None have tried to breakaway (or at least not on the public scale like scotland have). The UK will have to do something to adapt or it really is game over - I’d rather the UK try a devo max option before a complete breakup. I do geuinely believe Westminster is now waking up to the fact something must be done. I think England should have a devolved government, it’s only fair, or a more temporary solution is banning non English MP’s voting on England only laws.

Jerry - Your quarrel seems to be with Westminster, why not campaign for change instead of doing the easy thing and and advocating breaking away? There is far more in the UK that unites us than divides us, we are now realising that with the EU. As i’ve said many times before I am no fan of the current system nor Westminster, nor the tories (like I once was) and am all for change. People in England who want to see the UK stay together are not the government, nor does the government speak for them. For a federal UK to work, england needs to be divided into regions.

Change will have to happen i’m confident, otherwise it’s game over.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

aviatorconcorde

Could you clarify a couple of things in your post? In your reply to my post you say that England should have a devolved government with, it appears, a suggestion that the four devolved governments should be given the opportunity of devo max.

Later in your post when addressing Jerry's points you say that 'for a federal UK to work' England should be split into regions.

Do you mean that an English devolved government should split itself into regions or that a regional approach for England would actually take the place of a devolved English government?

Many thanks.

 

[Jerry]

The US despite its problems, has 50 states all of different shapes, sizes, populations, cultures and economic development and they all seem to co exist as part of a union.

The big difference with the USA is that with the exception of Texas which applied to become part of the USA none of the states have been independent countries (even the 11 that became part of the Confederate States of America between 1861-1865). They were either former colonial possessions of the Great Britain, Spain and France, part of Mexico or territories of the USA itself that were then granted statehood as in expanded and although each state does have it's own unique identity they aren't national identities like Wales, Scotland, N.Ireland and England are. They don't have national sports teams that play against other countries or their own language and culture. They are pretty much American and in general you don't have one states culture and laws trying to override the others. I just generally don't believe a federal system like that would work in the UK because of England and Westminster. They just don't want that system in place and Westminster especially doesn't want reform no matter who's in charge but especially the current government. People like Jacob Rees Mogg don't want reform they want 19th century Britain back where the power was in London where people like them made the decisions.

Jerry - Your quarrel seems to be with Westminster, why not campaign for change instead of doing the easy thing and and advocating breaking away?

I used to want a federal system or autonomy for Wales but Brexit and APD convinced me it'll never happen because Westminster doesn't want it and i don't think they respect Wales or the Welsh government to want to implement it and as i've researched independence and looked at other small countries around the world i see independence as the best option for Wales going forward. Also i've looked a lot at countries like Ireland and Estonia and i want to see my countries flag flying at the UN next to them and hopefully see Wales one day be elected to the UN Security council and contribute to the international community as itself as a European nation no different to countries like Ireland, New Zealand, Estonia and Norway. If St Vincent and the Grenadines a couple of islands in the Caribbean with a population of 110,000 can be an independent country (ex British colony i believe) and get elected to the UN security council then there's no reason why Wales can't be and while independence is the end of the union between Wales and England it's the beginning of Wales finally becoming a nation state because in our history Wales hasn't really been given the chance to be that. Scotland of course is different as it has been a european nation before and i've no doubt it will be again in a few years time because i don't see Westminster coming up with anything to keep the Scots, Scotland and England are just too different now as countries especially politically.

 

[aviatorconcorde]

mark drakeford appears to back the union: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....s/what-mark-drakeford-said-asked-19754649.amp

 

[aviatorconcorde]

Jerry, your comments again suggest you don’t hate the UK, you’re just hacked off with Westminster and believe it isn’t working for Wales, in which you are correct. I imagine most Indy supporters feel the same.

In 2014, I think David Cameron knew he was going to win the Scottish referendum for the union. It’s different this time, this really is it. I just cannot see how Westminster and the tories will not act on devo max or federalism - or risk losing the whole farm. When it comes down it they will act, most likely in the form of devo max for Scotland, with Wales following a couple of years or so later.

It’s a shame the labour party is so weak now, they really were the glue that held the union together, being the major party in all 3 countries and taking views from all angles, rather than the england focused tory party.

 

[aviatorconcorde]

aviatorconcorde

Could you clarify a couple of things in your post? In your reply to my post you say that England should have a devolved government with, it appears, a suggestion that the four devolved governments should be given the opportunity of devo max.

Later in your post when addressing Jerry's points you say that 'for a federal UK to work' England should be split into regions.

Do you mean that an English devolved government should split itself into regions or that a regional approach for England would actually take the place of a devolved English government?

Many thanks.

Sorry if not clear, i’ve been throwing a few potentially workable options out there.

one option i’ve seen is England should be split into regions so they have a bit more equal weighting with Scotland, Wales and NI, in a federal UK. Another option is a standard devolution set up like Wales, or just allowing English MP’s to vote on English laws only.

There is certainly an argument for a devolved English parliament in my opinion, why should Wales and Scotland get one when England doesn’t?

You could also do devo English regions.

Gordon brown has some interesting reads on UK federalism, certainly worth looking at. Federalism could work in the UK it’s just the politicians don’t want to make it happen.

 

[Jerry]

Gordon brown has some interesting reads on UK federalism, certainly worth looking at. Federalism could work in the UK it’s just the politicians don’t want to make it happen.

Why keep the UK going? We can have virtually the same relationship in a confederation where each country is independent but pools resources on things like defence etc.

 

[KARFA]

Why do you assume you would have virtually the same relationship when outside the UK? Or that the remaining parts of the UK would want to pool resources with an independent Wales? If you want indepdence assume you will be independent, not in some half-arsed arrangement with one foot in and foot out.