Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts

Parity with Scotland?

There are many things to criticize Plaid Cymru for, but the one thing that has disturbed me most is in fact the central plank of their election campaign: namely that they want parity with Scotland both in terms of devolved powers and in terms of funding.

I don't have a particular problem with parity of devolved powers because, as things stand, our National Assembly has fewer powers than the Scottish Parliament, and therefore parity would be a practical first step. I would only qualify this by saying that I wouldn't want the powers of the Scottish Parliament to act as a limit. To give one example: it looks likely that powers to set the rate of Corporation Tax will be devolved to the Six Counties, but not to Scotland. Therefore I would want Wales to have this power too, irrespective of whether or not Scotland gets it.

For me, the principle is that I want everything that is currently decided at Westminster to be decided by our National Assembly ... in other words, independence.

-

But I do have a very big problem with the idea that Wales should get parity of funding with Scotland. And I am frankly amazed that Plaid Cymru has abandoned its previous position of wanting fair funding for Wales, and now wants something that is patently unfair.

Of course I understand why and how it happened, but that doesn't excuse Plaid's behaviour. The Holtham Commission did a good piece of work, demonstrating that Wales was underfunded relative to need on the basis of an objective formula. At that time, the block grant to the National Assembly fell short of what we would get by applying this needs-based formula by roughly £300m a year. This was set to get worse because of the Barnett Squeeze, but in fact has not got worse because cuts in public expenditure have put the Squeeze into reverse. However the shortfall will increase again when public expenditure starts to rise over the next few years.

Because of this shortfall, coupled with general discontent with the way Barnett worked anyway with regard to Scotland, there seemed to be consensus among all the parties in the Assembly (the Tories, Labour and LibDems as well as Plaid Cymru) that Barnett had reached the end of its working life and needed to be replaced. The problem is that just before the Scottish independence referendum, those three Unionist parties panicked in the face of closer than expected opinion polls, and made a vow to retain Barnett.

It was at this point that Plaid Cymru panicked ... with the result that they came up with a policy to demand the same amount of funding per head as Scotland gets. Of course not all public spending in Scotland is channelled through the Scottish Parliament (for example most benefits and pensions are paid directly to individuals and families) but if the same "block grant per head" were paid to our National Assembly as is paid to the Scottish Parliament it would indeed, after making allowance for different devolved functions, result in Wales getting something like an additional £1.2bn in block grant.

Now what's wrong with that? Well, to put it bluntly, any child could see what's wrong with it. Why pick Scotland? Why not pick England instead and demand that Wales gets a block grant equivalent to the same level of funding per head as England? Simple, because if Plaid Cymru picked England, Wales would get much less of a block grant than we do now. In other words, picking Scotland is a blatantly biased choice. If the principle you adopt is equal spending per head, then that has to apply across the whole of the United Kingdom—which, by the way, is UKIP's policy—it cannot be applied selectively.

In effect what Plaid Cymru are doing is asking English taxpayers to give Wales much more than we need on any objective basis, and very much more than they give themselves. It is a wicked and stupid idea, and I have to say I'm very glad that I am no longer associated with a party that can come up with something that can only be described as a total perversion of any concept of either fairness or reason.

-

In principle there are some very basic rules about how to redistribute funding between different parts of a state. We need to consider two things: how much each part of the state produces in terms of tax revenue, and how much each part of the state needs. One sum will be usually be higher than the other, and an equitable funding formula must be somewhere between the two. It cannot be outside that range.

A needs-based formula on its own will not work because, as the Holtham Commission noted, if it were applied to Scotland, it would result in Scotland getting maybe £4bn a year less in block grant than it does now. However that does not mean that Scotland is over-funded, because Scotland provides more per head in tax revenue to the Treasury than most other parts of the UK. In Scotland's case, the proportion of tax revenue it contributes to the Treasury is more than its relative needs, therefore it is right that Scotland gets more than it needs.

But in the case of Wales, what we produce in tax revenue per head is quite a bit lower than other parts of the UK, and the sum is also lower than what we objectively need, based on the formula used by Holtham (which, by the way, is based on the way money is distributed by departments within England). It is therefore reasonable and justified to say that Wales deserves more money, but only as much as will bring us up towards what we objectively need ... not more than that. To ask for or expect more is nothing but greed. Yet this is what Plaid Cymru have sunk to. It's sickening and shameful.

-

It's also deceitful, because it is undeliverable. As I showed in the last post, even if the SNP win upwards of 50 seats on Thursday, they will not get to determine the direction of government. The same would be just as true if Plaid Cymru won 35 seats in Wales. 533 English MPs will never vote to give Wales more than it either contributes to the Treasury or needs.

That's not to say that there are other aspects of the way Wales is funded that can't be improved. In addition to the £300m shortfall in the block grant (or whatever it now is when the Holtham formula is applied) we can rightly call for our fair share of infrastructure investment so that, for example, Wales gets a pro-rata share of rail infrastructure investment or research funding relative to the rest of the UK. But we must make a reasoned and rational case for this, and we weaken any case we make if we, at the same time, are making unreasonable and irrational demands.

-

In closing, I would also ask people to consider, in practical terms, what the result of getting more money from England than we either need or contribute to the Treasury would be. How on earth would it help us stand on our own two feet as a nation? It would simply tie us closer into dependency on England. Yet this is party policy ... from a party that supposedly wants independence! Perhaps, under better leadership, Plaid Cymru might become a party that is worth voting for again ... but it certainly isn't worth voting for them now.

Bookmark and Share

Watching the results come in

The voting is over, and now it's time to watch the results come in.

There will be separate counts in each of Scotland's 32 local authorities, and the anticipated timetable (here) for each count is below. Three of the largest authorities—Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen—will be among the last to come in, and together account for a about a quarter of the overall result. So those of you that aren't planning to stay up all night could set your alarms for 5am to catch the big declarations that are likely to swing it one way or the other.

Fairly obviously, there are some areas where the Yes vote will be relatively strong, and others where it will be weaker. So I've asked myself about the best yardstick to measure the individual declarations against. It's not very helpful to use the 1997 referendum results because there were two main factors driving the Yes vote: the first was those who wanted more autonomy for Scotland; but the second was those who might not have been sure about a Scottish Parliament, but who voted Yes out of loyalty to Labour. It had been one of New Labour's keystone pledges, Tony Blair had only just been swept into power on a wave of optimism, and people trusted him. The highest Yes/Yes vote was in the (then) Labour fortress of Glasgow, at 75%, with West Dunbartonshire, North Lanarkshire, and East Ayrshire also above 70%. But Labour voters will be much more divided this time round.

Unsurprisingly the polls show a strong correlation between voting SNP and voting Yes to independence. So the best yardstick I can think of is to compare the Yes vote against the percentage of first preference vote for the SNP in the 2012 local elections. However this doesn't work well for Orkney, Shetland and Na h-Eileanan Siar, because these councils are dominated by independent councillors, so I've taken a guess based on the SNP vote in the 2011 election, shown in brackets. It probably won't make much difference if I've got these wrong, because they account for very little of Scotland's overall population.

My basic assumption is that the "spread" of votes will probably be no more than a third. So to achieve a 50/50 overall result, the Yes vote would be up towards 67% in places where the SNP polled well in 2012 such East Ayrshire and Clackmannanshire; but would be down towards 33% in areas with little SNP support such as Dumfries and Galloway. On this basis I've worked out a "Yes target" for each council area. If the Yes vote consistently comes in higher than these targets, especially in the more populous council areas, Yes are on course for an overall victory.

02:00 – Na h-Eileanan Siar (0.5%) ... SNP 23.8% (65.3%) ... Yes target 67%
02:00 – North Lanarkshire (6.3%) ... SNP 34.6% ... Yes target 52%
02:00 – Inverclyde (1.4%) ... SNP 25.4% ... Yes target 40%
02:00 – Orkney (0.4%) ... SNP 3.0% (25.1%) ... Yes target 40%
02:00 – East Lothian (1.9%) ... SNP 30.4% ... Yes target 47%
02:00 – Perth and Kinross (2.8%) ... SNP 40.3% ... Yes target 59%
02:00 – Moray (1.8%) ... SNP 39.5% ... Yes target 58%

02:30 – Clackmannanshire (0.9%) ... SNP 46.1% ... Yes target 66%

03:00 – West Dunbartonshire (1.7%) ... SNP 30.3% ... Yes target 46%
03:00 – Dumfries and Galloway (2.8%) ... SNP 19.5% ... Yes target 33%
03:00 – Angus (2.2%) ... SNP 44.4% ... Yes target 64%
03:00 – South Lanarkshire (6.1%) ... SNP 36.4% ... Yes target 52%
03:00 – East Renfrewshire (1.7%) ... SNP 19.8% ... Yes target 33%
03:00 – Dundee (2.7%) ... SNP 43.4% ... Yes target 63%
03:00 – Falkirk (2.9%) ... SNP 40.5% ... Yes target 59%
03:00 – Renfrewshire (3.1%) ... SNP 35.3% ... Yes target 53%
03:00 – East Ayrshire (2.3%) ... SNP 46.9% ... Yes target 67%
03:00 – Aberdeenshire (4.9%) ... SNP 41.2% ... Yes target 60%
03:00 – Stirling (1.7%) ... SNP 37.2% ... Yes target 55%

03:30 – Midlothian (1.6%) ... SNP 39.5% ... Yes target 58%
03:30 – Argyll and Bute (1.7%) ... SNP 29.7% ... Yes target 46%
03:30 – West Lothian (3.2%) ... SNP 40.4% ... Yes target 59%
03:30 – South Ayrshire (2.2%) ... SNP 29.3% ... Yes target 45%
03:30 – Shetland (0.4%) ... SNP 1.9% (12.1%) ... Yes target 33%
03:30 – East Dunbartonshire (2.0%) ... SNP 25.4% ... Yes target 40%

04:00 – Fife (7.1%) ... SNP 31.1% ... Yes target 47%
04:00 – Highland (4.4%) ... SNP 25.8% ... Yes target 41%

04:30 – North Ayrshire (2.7%) ... SNP 35.6% ... Yes target 53%

05:00 – Scottish Borders (2.2%) ... SNP 20.8% ... Yes target 35%
05:00 – Edinburgh (8.7%) ... SNP 26.9% ... Yes target 46%
05:00 – Glasgow (11.5%) ... SNP 32.6% ... Yes target 49%

06:00 – Aberdeen (4.2%) ... SNP 31.3% ... Yes target 48%

This graphic from the Telegraph is quite useful, too.

     

Bookmark and Share

Not the first ... nor the last

Taking the step to independence is nothing unusual. This is the list of countries which have gained their independence from Westminster rule over the years.

United States of America ... 4 July 1776
Afghanistan ... 19 August 1919
Ireland (in part) ... 24 April 1922
Canada ... 11 December 1931
South Africa ... 11 December 1931
Australia ... 9 October 1942 (backdated to 3 September 1939)
Jordan ... 25 May 1946
Pakistan ...14 August 1947
India ... 15 August 1947
New Zealand ... 25 November 1947
Myanmar (Burma) ... 4 January 1948
Sri Lanka ... 4 February 1948
Israel ... 14 May 1948
Sudan ... 1 January 1956
Ghana ... 6 March 1957
Malaysia ... 31 August 1957
Cyprus ... 1 October 1960
Nigeria ... 1 October 1960
Kuwait ... 25 February 1961
Sierra Leone ... 27 April 1961
Tanzania ... 9 December 1961
Jamaica ... 6 August 1962
Trinidad and Tobago ... 31 August 1962
Uganda ... 9 October 1962
Kenya ... 12 December 1963
Malawi ... 6 July 1964
Malta ... 21 September 1964
Zambia ... 24 October 1964
The Gambia ... 18 February 1965
Maldives ... 26 July 1965
Guyana ... 26 May 1966
Botswana ... 30 September 1966
Lesotho .... 4 October 1966
Barbados ... 30 November 1966
Yemen ... 30 November 1967
Mauritius ... 12 March 1968
Swaziland ... 6 September 1968
Fiji ... 10 October 1970
United Arab Emirates ... 2 December 1971
Bahrain ... 16 December 1971
Bahamas ... 10 July 1973
Grenada ... 7 February 1974
Seychelles ... 29 June 1976
Solomon Islands ... 7 July 1978
Tuvalu ... 1 October 1978
Dominica ... 3 November 1978
Saint Lucia ... 22 February 1979
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ... 27 October 1979
Zimbabwe ... 18 April 1980
Vanuatu ... 30 July 1980 (and from France too)
Belize ... 21 September 1981
Antigua and Barbuda ... 1 November 1981
Saint Kitts and Nevis ... 19 September 1983
Brunei ... 1 January 1984

List from Wikipedia

Fifty-four so far. Each one now standing on their own feet, acting and speaking with their own voice in the world. Not one has asked to go back.

Now Scotland has the opportunity to join them. It's a big step. It's an important step. But it's not—as those who want to scare you into bottling it at the last moment would have you believe—a leap into the unknown. It's been done, successfully, many times before. You'll be number 55 on the list.

-

Neither will you be alone in a European context. This is a list of the countries in Europe that have gained or regained their independence:

Norway (from Sweden) ... 1905
Iceland (from Denmark) ... 1946
Belarus (from the USSR) ... 1991
Estonia (from the USSR) ... 1991
Latvia (from the USSR) ... 1991
Lithuania (from the USSR) ... 1991
Moldova (from the USSR) ... 1991
Ukraine (from the USSR) ... 1991
Slovenia (from Yugoslavia) ... 1992
Croatia (from Yugoslavia) ... 1992
Boznia Herzegovina (from Yugoslavia) ... 1992
Czech Republic and Slovakia (from each other) ... 1993
Macedonia (from Yugoslavia) ... 1993
Montenegro (from Serbia) ... 2006
Kosovo (from Serbia) ... 2008

So Scotland, it's now your turn.

Be brave. Say Yes.

     

Your Yes to independence will also encourage other countries to take the same step. Catalunya is set to vote on their independence from Spain in November. Euskadi and Galicia probably won't be far behind. Flanders and Wallonia are bound to split eventually.

And, which matters most to me, we in Wales will be emboldened to follow you.

Bookmark and Share

A Comfortable Yes

With only a few days to go before Scotland's big day, the time is right for me to predict what the result will be. I said this three weeks ago:

I think the polls have underestimated (because they have nothing to go on to measure it) support from the working class in Scotland and, in particular, the group of people who think "there's no point in voting because voting never changes anything".

Normally it doesn't. But this referendum provides a real chance of changing things ... and it's the people at the bottom who most need things to change. It all depends on getting them to register (still a week to go) and then turn out and vote. Groups like Radical Independence have played and will play a vital part in this.

I'll make this prediction. If the turnout is more than 85%, Yes will win. If it's less than 80%, No will win.

Scotland Yet – 26 August 2014

Bear in mind that I said this while the polls were still showing that the Yes vote was some way behind the No vote. Since then the polls have shown a dramatic narrowing in that margin, so that things are neck-and-neck. But the point I had made still stands, therefore I said this last week, in response to the polls from YouGov showing Yes at 51% to No at 49%, and from TNS-BMRB showing Yes and No at 50% each:

I'm delighted by the recent YouGov and TNS-BMRB polls. But I also think that all polls have tended to underestimate the fact that a very large percentage of those who don't normally vote, especially from more disadvantaged communities, are going to vote this time ... and are going to vote Yes.

I therefore expect the margin of the Yes vote to be much larger than these polls are predicting. Perhaps 53% to 47%. In fact if the turnout is over 85%, it might reach 55% to 45%.

I thought about flying the Union Jack – 10 September 2014

There is every indication that turnout is going to be very high. We now know that 4,285,323 people have registered to vote, which equates to 97% of the eligible population, and this is a far greater increase in registration than can be accounted for by extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds.

So I have very little doubt that Yes will win comfortably.

Bookmark and Share

The Charge of the Fright Brigade

In today's Scottish Sun there's a nice photo of the leaders of the three main Westminster parties as they abandon their usual ritual hostilities and instead head north in a last ditch attempt to frighten the unruly Scots into not voting for independence.

     

So the rumours are true. It looks like even Rupert Murdoch is convinced that Better Together has blown it and is therefore, true to form, now coming out to back the Yes campaign.

Bookmark and Share

I thought about flying the Union Jack

Apparently, we're now being urged to "fly the Saltire to persuade voters in Scotland to reject independence".

Odd, isn't it? I'd have the ought the obvious flag for Unionists to fly would be the ... er ... Union Jack. But when politicians are gripped by panic, they lose all sense of reason.

     

By that inverted logic, I suppose they would take the Union Jack to be a sign of support for an independent Scotland.

Well, I thought about buying one ... but just couldn't bring myself to do it. They wouldn't get the joke.

Bookmark and Share

Banksy says Yes

 
     

     

Bookmark and Share

Butterflies and an AyePad

Bella Caledonia has been running a competition for the best independence poster, and the twenty that have made it onto the shortlist can be seen on this page.

There are two that I particularly like. The first is one that I've shown before and is well worth showing again.

 
     
 

The second is by G Connelly:

 
     

Bookmark and Share

No love

Better Together, the group campaigning for a No vote in the Scottish independence referendum, launched a video aimed at women voters yesterday. It was immediately described as "insulting" by the Yes campaign because it portrayed women as "daft ditherers" ... although it's hardly likely that either side would have anything good to say about what the other side produces.

What surprised me, however, was what Blair McDougall, the director of the No campaign, said at the launch:

"The key factor for people isn't the love of our country – as both Yes and No voters love Scotland. The key factor is the love of our families."

Which can only mean that he thinks those who vote No love their families, but that those who vote Yes don't love their families.

Bookmark and Share

Scotland Yet

If you can carve out an hour-and-a-half, I'd recommend using it to watch this film from Rough Justice Films. This is what they have to say about it:

Scotland Yet is a feature length documentary that takes a radically different approach to the debate on Scottish independence.

Blissfully free of sound bites, politicians and statistics, Scotland Yet examines the sum of several personal stories from across the nation to explore the many reasons why we find ourselves at such an historic impasse.

Filled with remarkable characters and sparkling with collective imagination, vision and humour, this is the story of a society that’s beginning to see itself in a whole new light. From the old to the young, from veteran activists to bold artists, Scotland Yet delves into the past, documents the present and asks poignant questions about Scotland’s future.

This film focuses on the real referendum debate, the one taking place in the streets, homes and communities across Scotland. It documents the most important discussion we have ever had, as democracy, place, what we have here and what we lack, come to the fore.

A coming of age story about a whole society: Scotland Yet is a unique and radical cinematic journey about a country that will never be the same again.

     

Click the four-arrow button at the bottom right to watch it in full screen mode.

Bookmark and Share

If Cameron REALLY wanted to save the UK

On Wednesday, the Daily Record published the results of the latest Survation poll it has commissioned on Scottish independence. This showed that the gap between Yes and No had again narrowed. Excluding don't knows, it now stands at only 6%, with Yes at 47% and No at 53%.

For those of us who want Scotland to be independent, this is very good news in itself. But the poll contained even better news, which the Daily Record described as a "bombshell".

     

Even by tabloid standards the headline isn't an exaggeration. As shown below, if Scots believed that Cameron were to remain Prime Minister there would be a 14% swing to the Yes camp. Excluding don't knows, Yes would win by 54% to 46%. It would be what the Record describes as "a comfortable referendum victory".
 

     

The full tables from the poll are here and, in a nutshell, they show that a good percentage of Labour supporters would change their minds and vote Yes to independence in order not to be ruled by a Tory Government. Not all of them, and not even a majority, but enough to secure a comfortable Yes victory.

-

Of course the big question is how likely this will be. Nobody can be "certain" of the result of an election that will be held in May 2015. All that can be said at the moment is that Labour are not doing anywhere near well enough to be sure of victory, and that the Tories are doing remarkably well considering the misery of the austerity cuts that we've been enduring for the last few years. Although the recovery after the recession might well have been delayed longer than necessary, there has been a recovery, and things are likely to improve further in the next year. Coupled with a few choice rabbits pulled out of George Osborne's hat at the last minute, the Tories will go into the election in bullish mood, saying that they've "turned the economy round".

On top of that, the Tories have an electoral card up their sleeve. At the moment they seem to think that they will be able to see off the threat from UKIP, knowing that UKIP can at best win no more than a handful of Westminster seats because of the first-past-the-post electoral system. But we know (see this post) that most UKIP voters have previously voted Tory; so if the Tories think that too much of their previous vote will be lost to UKIP in 2015 and that this split vote will let Labour in, it should be very easy to do a deal with UKIP. UKIP would probably be satisfied with a deal in which the Tories gave them a clear run at a couple of dozen seats in return for UKIP standing down in a few dozen key Tory marginals.

The end result might not be an overall Tory majority, but it would be enough to enable David Cameron to remain Prime Minister in a Tory-UKIP coalition, or in a minority government which would be stable because its opposition would be on different sides of the political spectrum.

-

What is remarkable about this poll is the extent to which Labour voters in Scotland will vote Yes to independence in order not to live under a Tory-led government in Westminster. It makes a 14% difference to the outcome of the referendum, which is easily enough to secure a Yes win.

So the question for David Cameron is this. Which is more important: forming a Tory-led government at Westminster in 2015, or saving the United Kingdom?

If David Cameron's main political priority is to keep the Union together, the way to ensure it happens is to let Labour win the Westminster election in 2015. If the danger of losing the United Kingdom matters more to him than the short-term aim of another five years in power, he doesn't really have a choice.

So will he do it? Of course he ...

Bookmark and Share

Soar, Alba

 
     
 

 
Update - 15:50, 15 June 2014

Stu Evans of Welsh not British has come up with this version for Wales.

 
     

Nice one, Stu ... but are you sure we should be smiling?

Bookmark and Share

Wales for YES

With a hat-tip to the Daily Wales, it's good to see that a Wales for YES group has been set up for the Scottish independence referendum. I rather like the logo.

     

I can't imagine a better spokesperson for the group than John Dixon, and hope he gets the media attention he deserves.

Wales for YES also has pages on Facebook and Twitter.

Bookmark and Share

Unlocking the lockstep

I'm sure most readers of Syniadau will know this; but for any who don't, the "lockstep" is a provision that devolved income tax rates can only be varied by exactly the same amount in each tax band rather than varied individually.

This is already part of the Scotland Act 2012 (although it has not yet to come into effect) and is something that Westminster wants to impose on Wales too, even though it is against the specific recommendations of the Silk Commission. Part of the reasoning behind this seems to be that Wales should only have the same as Scotland ... which is completely bogus, because the same reasoning would mean that Wales should have the same model of devolution as Scotland and that the same things should be devolved to us as are devolved to them.

-

The news today is that the Scottish Labour Party have just published the recommendations of a commission they set up about further devolution to Scotland in the event that Scotland votes No in September. The Executive Summary is available by clicking the image:

     

Interestingly, one of the proposals is that the base from which the devolved portion of income tax is varied should go up from 10p in the pound to 15p in the pound, and that the lockstep should be removed. Except for one small detail ...

The Scotland Act enables the Scottish Parliament to increase or decrease income tax rates in Scotland. In addition to extending this power, we will also introduce new Scottish Progressive Rates of Income Tax, so that the Scottish Parliament can increase the rates of tax in the higher and additional bands. For the first time, the Scottish Parliament will be able to alter both the level of tax and the progressivity of the tax system, but without the risk that a Scottish Government could force tax competition within the UK by cutting only the top rates, to the detriment of public services. Labour in the Scottish Parliament would be able to use these powers if a UK Government did not set fair taxes at these levels.

Yes, under Labour's version of devolution the Scottish Parliament can only increase, but cannot decrease, the higher rates of income tax relative to the basic rate. In other words, it can only enact Labour's policies, not those of any party that might want to cut the higher rates of tax relative to the basic rate. This shouldn't come as too much of a surprise, for the members of the Commission are all Scottish Labour politicians.

-

One other amazing recommendation in the report is that Labour in Scotland are committing themselves to retaining the Barnett Formula:

The Barnett formula should remain as the funding mechanism for public services in Scotland.

As this aspect of the report was trailled beforehand, John Osmond has already written about it in this article on Click on Wales. I agree with him.

If Barnett is retained for Scotland, it will also have to be retained for Wales, and therefore any chance of replacing it with a new funding formula based on need goes out of the window. It means that Scotland will continue to receive some £4bn a year more than it would get under a needs-based formula, and that Wales will continue to receive some £300m a year less than we would get under a needs-based formula. And our shortfall will increase due to the Barnett Squeeze as spending on public services rises.

The reasons for this are quite understandable. They want Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom, and therefore they have little choice but to say that they have no intention of cutting Scotland's block grant. If they said anything else, it would encourage more Scots to vote Yes in September.

The message to Wales is quite clear: we are of no importance whatsoever.

But perhaps there is another message. Just as Labour in Westminster are not going to take a blind bit of notice of anything that Carwyn Jones as so-called leader of Welsh Labour might want, are they going to take a blind bit of notice of what the so-called leader of Scottish Labour, Johann Lamont, might want? After all, this report is by the Scottish Labour Devolution Commission, not Labour in Westminster. Why should Ed Miliband or Ed Balls be bound by it?

Nearly everyone in Westminster believes that the Barnett Formula is way past its useful life and needs to be replaced, so it would be foolish to think that even a Labour government in Westminster wouldn't seize the opportunity to save itself £4bn a year ... if the Scots vote No in the referendum.
 

 
Update - 12:28, 19 March 2014

I've added the video of last night's interview with Johann Lamont on Newsnight Scotland.

     

Gordon Brewer echoes the point I made when he says, regarding Barnett: "Surely even a Labour Government in London would say, 'You must be joking!'"

Bookmark and Share

Conference on Catalan self-determination

A couple of months ago I attended a conference on the self-determination process in Catalunya, organized by DiploCAT and hosted by University College London.

It was well worth it, and I came away with so much infomation that I wasn't able to condense it into a blog post, even though that had been my intention at the time. Thankfully, the feeling of guilt that has nagged me since then has now been assuaged, because I've just found out that the whole thing has been put up on the web for everyone to see.

So if anyone finds themselves with a few hours to spare over the Christmas holiday, I'd recommend it. Highly. I can't think of a better, more complete picture of what has been happening and is happening there, or a better analysis of the political, diplomatic and legal issues involved ... not just for Catalunya, but also for Scotland, particularly with respect to the EU. Just click the image below:

 
     
 

Bookmark and Share

Two pieces of good news about energy

There have been two interesting pieces of news about energy this week. The first is that the European Commission has formally confirmed that it will hold an investigation into the legality of state subsidies for the proposed Hinkley C nuclear power station.

Hinkley Point C nuclear subsidy plan queried by European Commission

   

Officials promise to investigate, saying they doubt claims of market failure and fear UK will start a "subsidy race".

The Guardian, 18 December 2013

This shouldn't come as a surprise, as Le Monde had flagged up the story a few weeks ago, which was then picked up by the Telegraph, as I mentioned in this post. In fact, Le Monde reported it as an open-and-shut case of illegal state aid, so the outcome is probably not in any real doubt. The Guardian's article has all but confirmed this, quoting Günther Oettinger, the European Union's Energy Commissioner, saying that he thought the huge subsidy was "Soviet" in style; and Joaquín Almunia, Vice-president for Competition Policy, describing the aid package as a complex measure of an unprecedented nature and scale, and warning that it risked setting off a "subsidy race" between member states.

Ed Davey was putting a brave face on it in this Ministerial Statement, but it is hard to see how the UK government can defend itself, and some sort of financial sanction is almost certain to be imposed on the UK government as a result, which is the usual way the European Commission would enforce a judgment. The real question is how big this will be. In the face of some £17bn of state subsidy, it would need to be very substantial; for if it isn't, the UK government might well just decide to add it onto the bill that taxpayers have to pay. After all, what's another few billion?

Of course there is also a political dimension in that EDF is state-owned, so the French Government is obviously not going to object to UK taxpayers putting large, or even larger, amounts of money into French pockets. But on the other hand, Germany is hardly going to want to see nuclear power proliferation spread across the continent. Nor will it want to see the financial framework of the EU single market distorted out of all recognition by state subsidies and protectionism, especially as Germany effectively underwrites the EU's finances. So a great deal is at stake.

At the very least, this investigation should serve to put the UK Government's plans for more new nuclear power stations back a few steps, which is very good news for those of us who oppose building a new nuclear power station in Wales.

-

To add to that good news, the Department of Energy and Climate Change has just published the latest set of energy statistics, available on this page.

It's good news in this sense. Scotland produced 40.3% of the electricity it consumes from renewables in 2012, up from 36.3% in 2011 and 24.1% in 2010. This is from the Scotsman:

Two-fifths of electricity in 2012 from renewables

   

Statistics from the UK Government’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) showed 40.3 per cent of energy consumption in 2012 was met by the sector – up from 36.3 per cent the previous year and 24.1 per cent in 2010.

The Scottish Government believes it is on course for half of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2015, an interim target ahead of the goal of having the sector generate the equivalent of 100 per cent of electricity needs by 2020.

Scotland continues to produce more energy than it uses, with 26 per cent of electricity generated last year being exported. Nuclear power provided 34.4 per cent of electricity generated in Scotland in 2012, while 29.8 per cent came from renewables, 24.9 per cent came from coal, 8 per cent from gas and 2.8 per cent from oil and other sources. While 29.8 per cent of electricity generated north of the Border was from renewables, in England the sector only produced 8.2 per cent of electricity, while in Wales and Northern Ireland renewables accounted for 8.7 per cent and 15.9 per cent.

-

Energy Minister Fergus Ewing said: “These figures show renewable electricity in Scotland is going from strength to strength, confirming that 2012 was a record year for generation in Scotland and that 2013 looks set to be even better. We can already see from the first nine months of 2013 that generation is 4 per cent higher compared to the same period in 2012. These figures show that renewable generation in Scotland was at a record high last year, meeting around 40 per cent of our electricity demand at a time when Ofgem [the energy regulator] are warning of the ever-tightening gap between peak electricity demand and supply.”

Director of environmental charity WWF Scotland, Lang Banks said: “It’s great news that Scotland’s renewable energy capacity and output both continue to grow, and this year looks like being another record breaker. However, in order to remain on target Scotland will need to deploy significant amounts of offshore wind in the near future. It’s therefore vital that the UK Government gives a stronger signal of its ambition on the growth of offshore wind in Scotland’s seas.”

He added: “While the rest of the UK has become distracted by gas fracking and new nuclear power, Scotland has quietly got on with the business of deploying renewables at scale. By combining Scotland’s superb renewable energy resource with greater energy efficiency and investment in the grid, Scotland can continue to avoid the need for polluting forms of energy.”

The Scotsman, 19 December 2013

This shows the huge difference in attitude between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. Although energy is not technically devolved to Scotland, the Scottish Government is able to use its planning powers and the ability to set different tariffs for ROCs to effectively control its own energy policy ... at least in terms of how it develops. The Six Counties can also do this.

As a result, 29.8% of the electricity generated in Scotland was from renewables (the difference between 40.3% and 29.8% is because Scotland exports so much electricity to England and Ireland) as was 15.9% of the electricity generated in the Six Counties.

Wales has renewable resources that are almost equal to those of Scotland on a head-for-head basis (less in wind resources, but much more in tidal resources) and better than those of the Six Counties. Yet we lag behind on 8.7% from renewables, only marginally ahead of England's 8.2%. The problem is therefore one of policy. Wales cannot decide its own energy policy using the tools that are available to Scotland and the Six Counties, and therefore is forced to accept England's energy policy, based on England's priorities.

-

Because of projects already in the pipeline, it is almost certain that Scotland will reach the target of producing half of the electricity it consumes from renewables by 2015. And if it continues with these policies there is no reason at all why it shouldn't reach 100% by 2020. Scotland is showing us what can be done.

We in Wales could easily do the same if we were able to concentrate our efforts on developing the renewable resources we have in abundance, rather than being forced off course by the UK Government's obsession with fracking for gas and new nuclear power stations.

Bookmark and Share

A Green Yes

Just ahead of the SNP government's white paper on independence, the Scottish Green Party today launched their own campaign for a Yes vote in next year's independence referendum.

     

I think it's worth highlighting this line from the BBC report:

The Greens' message here this morning is that they're not nationalists. Instead, the party's belief in independence is rooted in a desire to transform politics and society. It's the kind of radical change, they argue, that Westminster is increasingly unlikely to deliver.

BBC Reporting Scotland, 15 November 2013

It echoes something that I've said before, but want to say again. Many of us in Plaid Cymru want independence for unashamedly nationalistic reasons: we believe that the people of Wales should decide how Wales is governed because that's what nearly every other nation in the world is able to do, and we deserve no less. That's a good reason to want independence and one that I fully support.

But some of us perhaps don't understand that others are indifferent—and sometimes quite opposed—to nationalism, and want independence not so much on principle, but more reluctantly, because they have come to realize it is the only alternative to being dragged along the ever-rightward political path that the UK has been relentlessly following for the past three decades, and is clearly going to continue to follow whether led by blue Tories or red Tories.

This is what the Greens in Scotland have decided is best for Scotland, and I have every reason to believe that people with the same views in Wales will come to the same conclusion. With that in mind, I'd recommend reading the Vision for Independence that the Scottish Greens have just published.

     

Much as I like the SNP, this is rather more "spiky" ... and therefore more in tune with many of our values in Plaid Cymru.

Bookmark and Share

Complete Fear

I'm sure quite a few of us will have been watching the The Fear Factor from Rough Justice Films piece by piece, but here is the complete version:

     
 

     

We need to learn from this, for the same tactics will be used against us when it's our turn to vote for independence.

Bookmark and Share

The Scots reject Britain as a nation, too

When the 2011 census figures on national identity for Wales and England were released last year they showed that people in both countries overwhelmingly rejected the idea that Britain was a nation. The equivalent figures for Scotland are among those that have just been released today, and they show almost exactly the same thing.

To demonstrate this, I have updated the table I included in this post to include the figures for Scotland. Although the wording of the questions is slightly different, it is important to notice that these are specific questions about national identity rather than identity in a more general sense.

How would you describe your national identity?
Tick all that apply ...

In Wales:

Welsh only ... 57.5%
Welsh and British only ... 7.1%
Welsh and any other(s) ... 1.2%
Welsh in any form ... 65.9%
Not Welsh ... 34.1%

British only ... 16.9%
British and any other(s) ... 9.4%
British in any form ... 26.3%
Not British ... 73.7%

English only ... 11.2%
English and British only ... 1.5%
English and any other(s) ... 1.1%
English in any form ... 13.8%
Not English ... 86.2%

In England:

English only ... 60.4%
English and British only ... 9.1%
English and any other(s) ... 0.7%
English in any form ... 70.1%
Not English ... 29.9%

British only ... 19.2%
British and any other(s) ... 10.1%
British in any form ... 29.3%
Not British ... 70.7%

Welsh only ... 0.6%
Welsh and British only ... 0.1%
Welsh and any other(s) ... 0.1%
Welsh in any form ... 0.8%
Not Welsh ... 99.2%

What do you feel is your national identity?
Tick ALL that apply ...

In Scotland:

Scottish only ... 62.4%
Scottish and British only ... 18.3%
Scottish and any other(s) ... 1.9%
Scottish in any form ... 82.6%
Not Scottish ... 17.4%

British only ... 8.4%
British and any other(s) ... between 8.4% and 10.7% *
British in any form ... between 26.7% and 29.0% *
Not British ... between 71.0% and 73.3% *

English only ... 2.3%

* The dataset for Scotland has been released in a less detailed form, making it impossible to distinguish between those who describe their national identity as, for example, Welsh only and those who describe it as Welsh and British. However these groupings only account for 2.3% in total and therefore don't affect the overall picture by very much.

Census 2011, Table KS202EW
Scottish Census 2011, Release 2A, Table 6

In each country the figure who describe their national identity as British in any way, shape or form is less than 30%. There is hardly any difference between the three countries. The figure is lowest in Wales at 26.3% and highest in England at 29.3%. This is an emphatic rejection of the idea of Britain as a nation across the whole of this island.

Instead, a large majority of people in all three countries think of their national identity as being Welsh, English or Scottish only. Again the figures are remarkably similar: highest in Wales at 69.2% (57.5% Welsh only, 11.2% English only, 0.5% Scottish only) and lowest in England at 61.8% (60.4% English only, 0.6% Welsh only, 0.8% Scottish only).

In both cases Scotland sits neatly in the middle. However there is one significant difference: the percentage in Scotland who regard their national identity as Scottish and British is very much higher (18.3%) than the equivalent figure in either Wales (7.1% Welsh and British) or England (9.1% English and British). And, correspondingly, the figure for those who regard their national identity as British only is very much lower in Scotland (8.4%) than it is in either Wales (16.9%) or England (19.2%).

I don't fully understand the reason for this, and I'd value people's thoughts about why opinion in Scotland should be so different.

-

In closing, I think I should repeat the point I touched on before. These census questions are specifically about national identity, not about identity in a more general sense. Most people in Denmark would feel Scandinavian and be happy to identify themselves as Scandinavian ... but would never describe their nationality as Scandinavian. Most people in the Netherlands would feel European and be happy to identify themselves as European ... but would never describe their nationality as European.

In the same way, it is perfectly possible for people to feel British without considering their nationality to be British. There's nothing wrong with the idea of Britain; it is perfectly reasonable to describe the geographical, historical, cultural and social identity we have in common as British.

But it is wrong to describe Britain as a nation, and even more wrong to describe Britain as "one nation". The census evidence shows that the people who live on this island overwhelmingly reject the idea of Britain as a nation. Instead, the vast majority of us see our national identity as Welsh, English or Scottish only.

Bookmark and Share

Bun-sgoil Taobh na Páirce

With a hat-tip to An Sionnach Fionn, here is a story from STV about the official opening of Edinburgh's first Gaelic-medium school.

First dedicated Gaelic school in Edinburgh officially opened

     

Bun-sgoil Taobh na Páirce has 30 Gaelic speaking staff teaching 213 pupils – 53 of them who started school for the first time this year. It has been built on the site of the former Bonnington Primary School in Leith and replaces the Gaelic Medium Education Unit at Tollcross Primary School. Dr Alasdair Allan, minister for learning, science and Scotland’s languages, officially opened the school on Wednesday.

Headteacher Anne MacPhail, said: "I’m very proud to be leading the school into a historic new era for Gaelic in the city. The local Leith community have been very welcoming since we moved in and I’m really looking forward to building on the successes of our first few weeks."

The primary school, which is open to anyone who wants to send their children there, has been funded by the Scottish Government and the City of Edinburgh Council.

Dr Allan said: "It’s a privilege to be here today to officially open Bun-sgoil Taobh na Páirce, Edinburgh’s first dedicated Gaelic school. This school, and others like it, will help ensure that Gaelic continues to be a vibrant part of our culture, immersing pupils and staff in the language and allowing them to carry it with them throughout their lives. Our efforts to encourage a new generation of Gaelic speakers and teachers is already showing encouraging results – as we’ve seen by the 12 per cent rise in pupils entering P1 this year – and the launch of City of Edinburgh Council’s Gaelic Language Plan will mean that its work to promote the language will reach even more people."

STV News, 25 September 2013

It's very good news. And I have to say that I admire the bravery of those four young girls for not running away while a live haggis was half-squeezed to death during the celebrations. The scourge of the pipes can be a bit of an ordeal. But I understand that it was released back into the wild afterwards, and is expected to make a full recovery.

Bookmark and Share