Dreaming of World Domination

Although nothing he has done previously has indicated any ambition for Wales, Carwyn Jones seems to have woken from his latest afternoon snooze with a game plan that might just make a difference to our fortunes.

Personally, I blame it all on Kim Howells. His one brief moment of fame came when he chaired a session of the United Nations Security Council ... and he has never stopped telling any of his party colleagues about it since.

     

     Kim Howells chairs the UN Security Council

Some medical experts say that this is the cause of Carwyn's narcolepsy. For faced with the same endlessly repeated tale, falling asleep is usually a much better option that running amok with a machete or sub-machine gun, and Carwyn isn't really cut out for anything so active.

But as he slumbered, Kim's words worked their way deep into his subconscious mind. Yes, he thought, my small country can hold the superpowers to account. They will listen to us ... if only ... if only ...

     

Then it came to him in a flash – and the explosive force of several megatons of TNT proved to be enough, though only just, to wake him up while he still remembered what he had been dreaming about. When Scotland becomes independent, the UK will have to find a new home for its weapons of mass destruction nuclear deterrent. The Scots have been complete fools not to want to keep them. Any real country would surely want to get its own way be a force for good in the world.

But what if Wales took them instead?

Carwyn isn't stupid. He has known for some time that Wales will become independent ... although maybe not for the next ten years. So if we can fool the UK government into spending a fortune to build a new nuclear submarine base in Milford Haven, but declare independence after that and then decide to keep the nuclear weapons rather than force England to find yet another home for them (which they probably couldn't afford to build anyway) we will be the ones that inherit the former UK's permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council.

Wales will finally be on the map. The Russians and the Chinese—not to mention those pesky Americans—will have to listen to us now. And in just the same way as the French have used their position at the table to ensure that all UN documents are translated into French, we will be able to ensure that everything is translated into Welsh.

At last we in Wales will have achieved our aim of world domination.

What exactly is the difference?

YouGov conducted an opinion poll in Scotland last week, which people can read in full here.

Much of it was to do with the percentage that would vote for each party, but what I want to concentrate on is the response to these two questions. The first is:

On balance, do you think Scotland should ...

• Continue to be represented in the EU by the UK Government ... 40%
• Be a member of the EU in its own right represented by the Scottish
Government ... 42%

and the second is:

In the referendum, the Scottish Government intends to ask people
whether they think the Scottish Government should negotiate a new
partnership with the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an
independent country. Do you agree or disagree that the Scottish
Government should negotiate this new partnership?

• Agree ... 37%
• Disagree ... 52%

I find this quite astounding, because I'm not quite sure what the difference is. The advantages (for both Scotland and Wales) of being members of the EU in our own right are numerous. We would each have our own EU Commissioner, our own voice and vote in the Council of Ministers, and more members of the EU Parliament than we have now (Wales would have 10/11 instead of 4, Scotland would have 12/13 instead of 7). One practical result would be that on all the matters the nations of Britain agree about, we would have more collective clout than we currently do. That can only be good.

But what I don't understand is how that percentage that want Scotland to be a member of the EU in its own right, but at the same time don't want independence, must see things. It's worth looking at the breakdown by party allegiance: a third of LibDems, a quarter of Tories and nearly a quarter of Labour voters in Scotland support the idea of Scotland being a member of the EU in its own right.

Guessing (and I'd welcome people's comments on this) I'd say they might think they want the UK to have a single voice on the world stage ... that would include things like G7 and G20 summits, being a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and sending troops on missions abroad.

But countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland aren't members of the G20. I'd gladly forego membership of the G20 if we could have the same standing in the world, not to mention standard of living, as these countries.

And even fewer than 20 countries are permanent members of the UN Security Council. The admission ticket for that club used to be possession of nuclear weapons. I wouldn't have thought it was worth the price.

And as for military might, wouldn't we as members of NATO continue to work with the armed forces of England and Scotland ... just as we would work (and be under the same overall command structure) as the armed forces of all the other NATO members?

In short, I fail to see what the big difference is. But if framing the question in terms of membership of the EU makes such a big difference in Scotland, what sort of answer would we get if we asked the same question in Wales?