Our open border with England

Welsh Agenda raises an excellent point that is almost never discussed in Welsh politics but that cuts to the heart of the idea that Wales could ever be an independent state.

There are two aspects to this issue. One is the elephant in the room- the large amounts of older people moving into Wales from other parts of the state, across the open border we share with England.

The other side of the coin is that Wales is providing the English economy with a stream of young, productive graduates whose education has in the vast majority of cases been paid for by the Welsh state. This is a double whammy- we are taking in people who have increased public service needs (through no fault of their own, just by being elderly), and swapping for them people that would usually be working and paying taxes.

In mainstream Welsh nationalism I have only ever seen the idea of Welsh independence being discussed in a way that includes an open border with England, the free movement of people and the free movement of goods, in line with the (quite flawed) liberal doctrines prevalent in modern Europe.

This is obviously realistic- you're never going to get people to sign up to the idea of putting up border posts between Wales and England.

But it also has serious implications for the viabiliy of Wales as a potential state. Mainly the following-

* We could probably never have a different VAT rate or excise duty to England because it would lead to smuggling across the open border (imagine paying different VAT in Chester than you would in Wrecsam). Using a different currency to England would also encounter problems, and both governments on either side of the open border would be dependent on each other when it comes to these matters.

* Public services will continue to cost even more than usual to provide in Wales because we already have a higher ratio of older, retired people (without even going into the issue of ill or injured former industrial workers in Wales, poverty, obesity, and so on).

* And at the same time, less economic production to create the wealth to pay for those public services takes place in Wales, as the profile of the Welsh population becomes older. Welsh Agenda notes the cosy idea that Wales "is a nice country to come and live in" with beautiful scenery etc, but this also reflects the fact that very little economic activity is taking place in much of our country.

In Scotland these are manageable problems, because either side of their open border with England is sparsely populated. They could witness some limited issues with people going to somewhere like Berwick to buy goods that are taxed under an English policy if a divergence happened (or vice versa) or if products and fuel were priced radically differently, but nothing that doesn't already happen in similar European countries. The major cities and conurbations in Scotland are far enough away from England to ensure that people couldn't move en masse from one state to the other if a significant divergence in tax policy took place.

As ever, Wales is simply not the same as Scotland, because the north-east and south-east of our country (the most economically dynamic regions) have huge cross-border flows including people commuting to work in different countries, and doing shopping etc. In Ireland these kind of flows provide an impetus to reunite the country. In Wales they logically have the same effect- but to keep us united with England.

So while nationalists are now more open than usual about articulating independence, and such a thing is achievable, to be remotely popular any such case will inevitably be wrapped up in liberalism, accepting globalisation, and "normalising" independence to make it as un-controversial as possible. The problem is that accepting all of those comfortable caveats potentially makes actual independence either impossible or meaningless. These issues will all come to light when Plaid Cymru undertakes further work on this subject- there might well be ways around it through sharing services and negotiating agreements as equal partners and so on.

At the same time this isn't a nationalist or constitutional obsession. Even if Wales does not become an independent state, the net in-migration of retirees into Wales stores up a demographic problem for future Welsh Governments. We will still have to fund services for many of these people from within the block grant, because devolution is now here to stay and in fact the people of Wales want more independence. It follows that for as long as Wales is within the union we also need to be funded on a needs-basis. Otherwise Wales as a country will not be able to afford the various requirements of these people that are moving in (and also Welsh-domiciled people who are ill or in poverty and need assistance). And with every year that we aren't fairly funded, any future viability or closing of the wealth gap becomes more difficult as services become more expensive.

The Welsh Government's response to these issues is complacent, stating only that "we welcome the fact that people want to come and live and work in Wales". They are welcoming the fact that skilled professionals are leaving Wales and the Welsh Government bills for social services and health will be going up. Clearly this is not just an issue for independence but an obstacle to financing a devolved Wales as well. It is not just Plaid Cymru that needs to resolve this but the unionist parties- in fact it could be argued that there is more of an onus on unionism to defend the current arrangements.

What is clear to me is that free trade zones are not always ideal for the development of a country and shouldn't really be celebrated or promoted as a great thing. Even whilst accepting that the current arrangements are here to stay, there needs to be a recognition that free trade zones, open borders and the easy movement of capital tends to promote migration and driving down wages and making the relocation of jobs easier. We have already seen this in Wales having lost the jobs subsidised by the WDA to the cheaper eastern European and Asian economies. Policies to mitigate this must be the way forward, based on training up people from Wales rather than bribing the footloose multi-nationals to come here. This is why the report by MPs last week is not really useful from a long-term perspective.

In debating the relationship between Wales and England in the future it also now needs to be clarified that Wales is in fact subsidising England to a significant degree by taking on many of their elderly people and sending them many of our skilled young people.

Irish opinion poll

A new opinion poll for the Irish Sunday Times is showing a remarkable surge in support for Sinn Féin who have leapt into second place in the popularity stakes, at the expense of Fianna Fáil and also the Labour party. The poll puts Sinn Féin on 25%. To put that into perspective, their result in first preferences at the 2011 elections in the southern state was 9.9%. The big story is that they have eclipsed Fianna Fáil and that the media has been stunned by Adams' performance since the 2011 elections, having not been used to any coherent opposition to the various parties of the southern establishment during the Celtic Tiger years.

The poll shows that Adams is now the most popular politician in the state, with a higher approval rating than the Taoiseach Enda Kenny. The recent Presidential campaign of deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness also saw the party increase their figurative share of the vote, and brought questions about the country's moral and social direction into sharper focus.

Party first preferences (2011 election result in brackets)-
Fine Gael- 32% (36)
Sinn Féin- 25% (10)
Fianna Fáil- 16% (17)
Labour- 10% (19)
Independents and others- 17% (17)

Neutrality

I have received two emails now and also comments on Twitter from my acquaintance Rob Williams the journalist asking why Welsh Ramblings has played no role whatsoever in the Plaid Cymru leadership race. Rob suggested I thought too much of myself if I thought I was doing people favours by "staying out of it".

The answer is I have stayed out of the race because I don't want to use this blog to state a preference for any candidate. Generally Welsh Ramblings shouldn't be seen as an official Plaid Cymru blog. That is why whenever I write about the party I say "they" rather than "we" because it's just my opinions about Welsh politics. My interest is in broader isses around progressive nationalist politics in Wales, not just tribal politics or specific parties. This has worked well because I can write about different things that are not getting commented on because everyone is tied up with the Plaid contest.

"MPs...to rescue Welsh economy"

The headline of the Western Mail front page yesterday ("MPs unveil blueprint to rescue Welsh economy") was eye-catching because it sheds light on Wales' longstanding economic problems and also shows that Wales' MPs are doing something.

However, it seems to me like their "blueprint"- a new report by the largely pointless Welsh Affairs Select Committee- is nothing of the sort.

All they have pointed out are things that have already been agreed in the Assembly. Firstly, that Wales' transport network is not up to scratch. The legacy of under-investment goes back decades. Network Rail has only last year recognised that Wales even exists as an operational divison, and its functions are still not devolved- in Scotland Network Rail's functions and budget are scrutinised by Scottish Ministers and it is no coincidence that Scotland gets a higher share of Network Rail's investment than Wales does. The MPs have therefore called for rail electrification to include Swansea and the Valley Lines and to go ahead "as soon as possible".

The problem is that both the Labour and Tory parties have been talking about this for years. It was Plaid Cymru policy in the 1980s. When it does finally go ahead that's fine but our neighbours in England will be getting HS2. Any celebrations or back-slapping when they start finally getting around to it will leave a sour taste because Wales' deficient infrastructure has prevented our country from developing at the same level as other parts of the state, widening the already existing regional wealth inequalities. We have had enough reports and rail electrification is talked about in the Assembly every week. It's time for the UK Government to get on with it.

Secondly they identify low levels of entrepreneurship as a problem, and thirdly the issue is the lack of a good brand for inward investment. There are a few other areas, some devolved and some reserved, that the MPs also recommend action on. I'm sure those things need addressing but those are ongoing issues.

The Welsh Affairs Select Committee has therefore produced a 55-page document in stating the obvious. It seems strange to me that every politician of every party now agrees with improving Wales' infrastructure but neither of the two governments operating in Wales will actually put their money where their mouth is. There is no sense of urgency at all and by the time we get 1990s-style electrified rails, Wales will already have been outpaced by the development of the futuristic HS2 line in England. Yet here the debate is whether conventional electrification will even go as far as Swansea...even that has not been guaranteed by the Tory-Lib Dem UK coalition.

Rather than rail electrification creating new jobs in Wales it will therefore merely mean we lose fewer jobs than usual, because London will be connected by HS2 to Birmingham which will boost several of the English regions that border Wales. England will have a competitive advantage over Wales, exacerbated by our peripheral location. This is not to sound defeatist, but the reality is that the Welsh MPs from the British parties are only just catching up with what the Assembly is discussing on a regular basis, and their time would be better spent pressing their London masters to actually fulfil their obligations to Wales.

Commies for fiscal responsibility

I have a confession to make- i've got a soft spot for the Communist party. While there are a multitude of far-left parties in Wales and the UK, the Communist Party is almost alone in understanding devolution and that Wales is a nation, due to their policy for a federation of socialist republics in the British Isles. They aren't part of the electoral scenery in Wales, but it would be churlish to write off their intellectual history, which included a period when the great Gwyn Alf Williams* was a member.

By now you can read all of the evidence from various parties and organisations to the UK Government's Silk Commission. I've taken a look at the submission of the Communist Party.

Why would anyone bother, doubters might ask? In most of the European countries there is political space to the left of social democracy for quite large communist and democratic socialist parties to exist like in Greece, the Spanish state, Portugal, France, Germany (and arguably Ireland) etc. In Wales with two big left parties in Labour and Plaid there is no such space and the Communist Party here simply doesn't scratch the surface in elections. Then again, neither does True Wales. How come the official media never reports that there are plenty of non-establishment voices that also want much further devolution and self-government for Wales?

I also wanted to contrast it with Labour's submission because both parties originate in class politics rather than nationalism; but there isn't an official Labour submission, only a Welsh Government one.

Seeing as True Wales claims a link to old-style labourism, I thought it was quite interesting also to compare their message with the Communist Party which probably has more members than True Wales anyway, and being Marxists have done far more detailed political analysis than True Wales ever would.

It follows that the Communist Party states that "Public Finance for Wales should be based on three elements. Tax raising powers, a needs based UK equalisation grant (to replace the current block grant administered as per the Barnett formula) and powers to raise funds through borrowing".

Their analysis is that this is necessary "because UK economic policies have actively deconstructed Welsh industry and have allowed Wales to develop at a slower rate than other areas of the UK". This is completely true. They go on to conclude that "we believe in the concept of ‘devolution as a process rather than and event’" and they are relaxed about the effects of that on the Union, saying that "this may well lead to a change in the nature or structure of the Union but we believe this should be allowed to proceed on a democratic basis".

With regards to the rest of their evidence the Communist Party calls for greater tax devolution than Plaid Cymru does. But this is because Plaid Cymru, being in a position of responsibility and having won a seat at the table discussing this process, has stuck to the actual remit of the Silk Commission which is a UK Government Commission and ultimately quite a strait-jacketed, unionist device. Plaid has done this quite rightly because this means their proposals are workable within the current remit that has been laid down by the ruling UK parties.

But my point really isn't about Plaid, its about the non-Welsh-establishment forces and how they have responded to this challenge.

Ultimately both True Wales and the Communist Party are from outside of the Welsh political establishment, claim descendancy from Wales' leftist heritage, and are not well-resourced or professionalised organisations. You do not have to be from the establishment to support increasing Wales' self-government and self-reliance, and in this case the Communists in the context of this Commission would go even further than the nationalists!

I post this on the 164th anniversary of Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto. A document that truly transformed the world and which contained principles that are still relevant today.

* Gwyn Alf Williams left the Communist Party due to disillusionment with the Soviet Union and its criticism of Tito's reforms in Yugoslavia, later joining the Labour party and then eventually Plaid Cymru. Raymond Williams also undertook a similar party journey (identical, as far as I can tell).

The alternative that isn't

The Labour Welsh conference this weekend has seen them celebrating their pole position in Welsh politics, an unbroken first place they have held for the duration of modern Welsh history with only one or two blips. This doesn't mean they've been in power for most of modern Welsh history though- something that's easy to forget, and until devolution and the Blair years Wales was shaped more by Tory policies. Nonetheless, they are now in power in Wales alone and allegedly are offering an alternative to the Tories.

We now have a deeply unpopular government at Westminster being run by the Tories and Lib Dems. In health, what they are advocating is beyond the pale. Make no mistake, the result will be the destruction of the NHS in England. But luckily in Wales we are insulated from this. While Carwyn Jones rightly said at the conference that "the forces of marketisation and privatisation stop at the Welsh border" it took Plaid Cymru's entrance into government to abolish the internal market in the Welsh NHS. The First Minister is indeed taking the correct position against privatisation and I would support that, but too few people realise that Plaid Cymru saved the Welsh NHS as a publicly-owned service by dealing the final blow to the internal market. This was at a time when governments all over Europe favoured marketisation- it goes to show you do not have to follow what everyone else is doing.

What struck me is that the policies Labour were promoting at their conference were either all continuations of Plaid Cymru's agenda, or a scaling back of the kind of activity they used to carry out. In terms of the values they are promoting, I find it hard to disagree. But while I don't have a significant difference in values to Labour (in their current Welsh brand), the truth is that they aren't carrying out anywhere near as much activity as the last government.

They talked at the conference about "capital investment to create jobs", and Ed Miliband cited this as a rare Welsh Labour policy he could use in England. But what does this actually mean? It is impossible for any party to be in government in Wales and to then not spend capital. It is easy for them to say they have used capital investment, and not be lying. UKIP could be in government and they would still spend capital from the housing or transport budgets. This is the normal business of government rather than a Labour party speciality.

Labour has reduced capital spending significantly because of the Tory cuts and do not seem interested in finding new ways of making up the shortfall. All of the announcements they are making represent capital spending in the Welsh economy going down rather than going up, and Welsh unemployment being higher than the UK average has now become a normalised situation when before the financial crisis it was generally always lower than the UK rate.

I am not however criticising the handling or presentation of the conference. They were virtually unchallenged in the media and there is no criticism of them. Their morale is clearly high. The speeches also seemed joined-up in a way where they all had the same vaguely left-ish agenda in mind- although its not a message that would go down well in the Middle England "swing seats".

The values they were offering throughout their conference chime quite well with my own. I don't agree at all with the Tory idea that government "gets in the way" of things or that we need to reduce its size significantly in order to "free" people. With the way the economy is across Europe working class people probably need more government rather than less.

But in any case despite my opposition to the Tories and all centre-right politics I don't see the evidence that Labour in Wales is opposing them in any tangible way. The Welsh Government is actually doing less than it used to. Furthermore, it is clear that none of Carywn Jones' flagship Plaid-era policies are acceptable to Ed Miliband.

With the well-managed conference now over, the First Minister is attending this week's Joint Ministerial Committee where the leaders of the devolved nations are able to meet with the UK Government, usually Nick Clegg. The First Minister's main talking point is his ongoing bid for powers over renewable energy in Wales. As usual this falls way short of what is needed. He only wants decision-making powers for renewable energy developments up to 100MW. So if a project generated 105MW of energy Labour would let English Tory Ministers decide. This stance excludes nearly all of Wales' offshore wind farms, any future Severn Barrage (or other large-scale tidal developments), and the Prenergy biomass plant at Port Talbot. In short, everything controversial! From a strategic point of view it doesn't make any sense, and Labour's MPs from Wales are against even the principle of these powers being transferred.

The problem (for me at least) isn't really what Labour in Wales says, or even what it does. It's what Labour in Wales doesn't do. They may have been trumpeting my Welsh socialist values from the conference stage, but they aren't acting on them.

Our friends at Westminster

One of the biggest issues in Welsh politics is the question of natural resources and where decisions about energy are made.

The biggest demonstration outside the Senedd since devolution began took place over this very issue. All four of the major Welsh political parties (and most of the minor ones too) had in their manifestos a commitment to devolve various decision-making powers over energy to Wales.

Jonathan Edwards MP tabled a bill at Westminster last week on attaining those powers. Inevitably, this Plaid bill was voted on by hundreds MPs from throughout the British state. But it is worth noting the Welsh votes. It strikes me as absurd that some MPs still advocate all of these decisions being made in London, a stance which relegates Wales to second class status. Notably, the First Minister Carwyn Jones has yet again today expressed his support for these powers coming to Wales. But as ever, he is hamstrung by the deep divisions within the Labour party in Wales, with all of their MPs except Paul Flynn queuing up in this debate to vote to protect the interests of Tory Ministers, and against the policy of Welsh Labour Ministers.

It says it all that this two-faced stance from Labour is now seen as completely normal and isn't even a cause for controversy in the press.

Lib Dems, the Silk Commission, and Labour's internal conflicts

The Lib Dems have made a very credible submission to the Silk Commission, with news emerging that they are calling for half of Welsh income tax revenues (and the ability to vary them by 3p) to be collected by the Assembly, complete control over the tidbit taxes (the stuff even Carwyn Jones and Peter Hain have agreed on such as air passenger levy, stamp duty, landfill tax), borrowing powers for infrastructure investment, and a fair funding formula.

According to Glyn Davies MP "this is seriously radical stuff". Not really! It's completely normal in federalised countries for the sub-central parts of the state to get some of their money from a central handout (that they have paid into in various ways), and the rest from their own revenue-raising efforts. The Lib Dems' recommendations stem directly from the Holtham Commission. Glyn thinks this is very radical because the British state is so abnormally centralised compared to states like Spain, Germany, Australia or the USA. That is not to say it is not welcome though.

But while it is not radical, Glyn Davies is right that it is serious. If translated into results (and it's a big "if"), these proposals are far bigger than the March 2011 referendum. If and when the Assembly becomes responsible for people's taxes, that's a game changer in terms of the institution's maturity and credibility. I don't see how they could soldier on with 60 AMs for starters. Tellingly, Glyn notes that Paul Silk's job is to decide "how" the Assembly gets fiscal powers. I think the likes of Peter Hain and Paul Murphy would take the view that Silk's remit is in fact to decide "whether" Wales gets those powers! None of this will fall into the laps of the pro-devolutionists; the forces of stagnation will try and sabotage Welsh progress at every turn, as they always have done.

That brings me to the topic of the Labour party. While broadly welcoming the Lib Dem stance, it is not true that they have significant influence; although you would expect Danny Alexander and Nick Clegg to be sympathetic to these kind of powers, Wales will be the battleground where these kind of proposals are either won or lost. The Commission needs cross-party support for its objectives. That inevitably includes the Labour party which as we were reminded last week is the most popular party in Wales.

At the same time, my previous comments about having power and having control being two different things ring true. Labour's massive electoral weight does not always translate into political influence. From the Government end they will be making their own official submission. This will be important and deserves to be treated with respect and given a fair hearing. Carwyn Jones will play a key role in this and the hope must be that he is progressive and open-minded about Wales growing up as a nation and becoming more responsible for its own affairs, and also being treated fairly by London. It would reflect well on his leadership if he steered through significant changes. No matter what might be said about his administration, as a politician the First Minister does support devolution and wants to see it benefit Wales.

At the other end, the party officially will be taking soundings after the Commission's recommendations are published. This means either that they have nothing constructive to say, or that they are incapable of producing a report because of the internal differences within the party. Simply put, they are not united and wouldn't be able to come up with a line that would be accepted by both the AMs and the MPs. They still haven't recovered from the fact that a legislative Assembly means fewer MPs centrally, and this is alot more serious than the dispute over Wales' electoral system. All of the real thinkers in Labour in Wales will be involved in the Welsh Government side of things, rather than the moribund partyist aspect. After the Commission publishes its verdict, there will no doubt be an internal ideological struggle, but until then the focus should be on the Welsh Government.

I don't lightly raise the idea of a Labour internal struggle as an attack or as wishful thinking. Part two of the Silk Commission is about further powers- last week we had Welsh Labour MPs voting against the Welsh Labour manifesto on energy powers. These are the contradictions that ensure that while Labour is always in power in Wales, it can't really deliver anything meaningful.

I haven't yet mentioned Plaid Cymru, who will no doubt be issuing their submission at some point. But the reality is that the late Phil Williams would now be very pleased to see his ideas being developed and accepted across a wide part of the political spectrum. Even in very recent years you would have been laughed out of a room if you had suggested the Assembly could ever raise its own money. The Assembly was only meant to be there to administer limited spending functions. The Holtham Commission was a crucial gain from Plaid's time in government and could end up being a game changer for Wales.

Clear support for a more independent Wales

The first Welsh opinion poll of the year demonstrates great news for people that support further devolution. But what struck me was the Labour response from their officially-sanctioned sites on social media. To put it shortly, they are literally obsessed with independence ("only" 10% of the Welsh people want it in this week's poll). They barely mentioned the Tories who are supposed to be the official opposition in Wales.

Some commentators like Gareth Hughes are also focussing on the idea that 42% of Plaid's own supporters don't want independence (a minority of 33% does). I don't know why Gareth thinks this is a "surprise"-polls consistently show that Plaid's voters don't want independence- only 20% of them wanted independence in the last ICM poll so the support has actually gone up. Believe it or not, looking back over polling history it is normal for Plaid's voters to not support independence.

The current focus on Welsh independence is because the Plaid Cymru leadership contest has dominated the Welsh political debate for the past few months and that has required all of the various candidates to discuss independence positively. And in politics generally, the issue of Scottish independence has been looming large and would end the UK as we know it.

The reality though is that in Wales the political landscape is different to Scotland. Scotland has already been independent and has many of the necessary institutions to function as a state, as well as a relatively well-developed economic base. In Wales there is no such viability at this stage. Independence is a revolutionary proposal. It doesn't make sense from a conservative perspective and there's no reason why most people would see it as desirable at this stage, compared to in Scotland where a referendum is programmed to happen. We need nation-building before independence as an actual event becomes either popular or possible. With that said, nation-building in itself makes little sense unless there is a clear destination or purpose and on that basis I have always supported independence. Not for the sake of being Welsh, but because nations should decide their own affairs as much as possible, especially in such a globalised world where power is moving away from people towards corporations and so on. Wales obviously has the potential to flourish but unlocking that potential requires all kinds of interim policies to be put in place.

Put simply, you can't have an independent Wales without a Welsh legal system, control over our resources, and more entrenched national institutions. Democracy means that the likelihood of attaining all of those things over night is impossible. This needs to be understood by rabid Unionists as much as it does by pro-independence hardliners. It doesn't really matter if people don't want independence right now because Wales isn't ready. It is a goal to be attained. But without that goal there would be no point in solving that or no incentive to fix many of Wales' problems.

The good news then is that support for greater powers is up to 32%. I must admit I was worried that the prospect of Scottish independence would see a backlash amongst Wales' quite conservative electorate whereby they would want no more powers, having seen that further powers could lead to what Kim Howells used to call "the gates of independence". I am glad to see that hasn't happened. Although it would be wrong to read too much into one poll, this echoes the kind of polls we were seeing before the 2011 referendum. The referendum itself might have been expected to dampen enthusiasm down or to have demonstrated the "settled will" of the Welsh electorate for a generation, but there is no sign of that.

Electorally, the news is good for Labour with the same result being shown for Welsh elections as the pre-Assembly election poll. But as we have seen from the behaviour of the Labour party since being elected last May, it is one thing to be in power and another thing to be in control. Politics isn't as simple as replacing one party in power with another, it's also about building hegemony across all parts of society and therefore what you do when you have power.

With Labour having been in power in Wales and the UK for so many years it is worth asking have their main core aims been met? Has Wales or the UK become more equal and does Wales or the UK have less poverty? With Plaid Cymru for example, they were only in power for a fraction of time and Wales concretely became more self-governing in a way that was proportionate to the power they had as a junior partner (this is without mentioning their other aims). I don't see the evidence that Labour's ongoing time in power in Wales or at the UK level has translated into ending poverty by 2020, or reducing inequality, or any other of their historic core aims. So aside from seeing who is winning at elections it's also worth exploring what political action that translates into.

It's worth remembering that while an independent Wales is possible, a more independent Wales is almost certain and there are going to be many political struggles in Wales before an independence referendum is on the table.

The left's defence of the UK

Ed Miliband visited Scotland this week to make an intervention into the referendum debate, in order to defend the union on vaguely left-leaning grounds.

Labour's defence of the union in the Miliband era echoes the kind of line used by Neil Kinnock in Wales in the past. The union state is necessary to fight against inequality and for social justice, and to defend pan-British creations such as the NHS and welfare state.

It is effectively a unionist version of my own position. Miliband is moving away from the emotional connection to Britain that other unionists have, and staking out a more materialist stance based on actual practical benefits he believes Scotland either receives or could receive from being part of the union.

This is the only hope unionists in Scotland have because using David Cameron to campaign there will be a waste of time. Every time Cameron or his Lib Dem partners make an appearance the poll support for independence seems to go up.

Miliband was therefore careful to suggest that Scotland "can survive" outside the UK, but that there are social justice and class reasons for Scotland to stay within the state. Namely, the welfare state and the NHS.

The problem though is that on the BBC News website today two of the main stories are the NHS being dismantled, and the welfare system being "reformed". The institutions that Labour wants to hold up as examples of British progress are disappearing because of reforms initiated by Blair and Brown, governments which Ed Miliband supported.

It isn't enough to simply say the Tories and Lib Dems are carrying out these attacks on what is left of the welfare state (which even in its present form in the UK is not that generous by European standards). Labour put everything in place for this to happen and did alot of the hard work to normalise the idea that these services should be handed over to the markets.

Miliband's message this week was that-

"I say let us confront the real divide in our society.

"Not between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, but between the haves and the have-nots."

"...I am here to tell you that we need to make Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, a fairer, more just, place to live...and we can do this best together."

What happened to the "real divide" in our society during Labour's thirteen year rule across the British state? It ballooned.

Attempts to outflank the SNP from the left will not work, because of Labour's appalling record in office. Their so-called aspirational politics have in fact ruined the ambitions of the current younger generations who are facing record levels of unemployment. This is why in his interview with Jeremy Paxman, Alex Salmond said that the Green Party for example is progressive, but Labour had "sometimes been progressive in the past" and definitely isn't anymore.

I will always defend patriotism and national sentiment to the hilt; and in fact, outside of the narrow-minded British Left it is completely normal for socialists in Ireland, the Basque Country, Sweden, Catalonia or Iceland (this is without even mentioning Latin America or Asia) to have a patriotic as well as a class outlook. For some reason this is allowed in all of those areas but in the UK we inexplicably have to support the union state for class reasons (or so goes the Labour logic). Alot of people will never be convinced by romantic nationalism alone and need to see material evidence that their interests will be advanced by nationalist parties. In Scotland, I simply don't see public services and the welfare state being safer under Labour- and neither does the electorate.

Long live the union

As a committed supporter of trade unions, the stagnant leadership of the movement in the Wales and the UK is a source of frustration and disappointment. The term lions led by donkeys has rarely been more true. With the UK having poorer workers rights and entitlements that most of the mainland European countries, despite having over a decade of Labour rule, it is clear that the Labour-affiliated trade union leaders have utterly failed to use their influence or their significant financial clout.

Whether I lived in an independent Wales, or the British state, or any other country in the world, I would support trade unionism and remain convinced organised labour is vital to any democracy.

But the news of the new appointment of a Regional Secretary (seriously- Wales is not even a nation ) for Unison in Wales is utterly shameful. The union bureaucracy has appointed a person that:

* has never worked in Wales.

* has "admitted she knows very little about Wales".

* and "doesn't even know who Carwyn Jones is".

It gets worse when we can see from the report that at least one of the other candidates for the role was Dominic MacAskill, a longstanding grassroots socialist who is not a tribal Labour party member and has been involved in Welsh politics for decades. Perhaps that was his downfall.

The reality is that appointing someone such as MacAskill would have shaken up the consensus that Unison has with the Labour party in Wales, because he would have insisted on criticising the Government when it was fair to do so, and if it was in his members' interests. Unison has therefore chosen to import a "professional" careerist candidate instead. This is all part of the trend in the Labour-affiliated unions to "modernise" and abandon any sense of militancy or radicalism, becoming toothless and co-opted into an increasingly right-wing Labour party in the process.

The conclusion is that Unison doesn't understand devolution, and in fact doesn't realise that Wales is a nation. A pro-Welsh challenge to the bureacrats in the trade union movement is desperately needed, particularly as governments across Europe are normalising an agenda of austerity and neoliberalism. Genuinely Welsh trade unions, as is the situation in Catalonia, would be a clear step forward.

Problems for Labour

Since Ed Balls and Ed Miliband set out a more centrist approach to public sector pay and cuts, Labour's opinion poll ratings have fallen. The Tories have opened up a 3 point and then a 5 point lead in two successive Yougov polls. Apparently, they would need a 7 point lead to win a majority in a British state election. All it would take is a domestic or international event to fall in Cameron's favour (an incident around the Malvinas perhaps) and they could entrench that lead.

Alternatively, there could be a UK Government crisis just around the corner and Labour could pick up again, in spite of the line that Balls has taken. But what is indisputable is that right now Labour are not in the place they want to be as the UK opposition party, and their leader is not getting through to the public. In their quest to appeal to a tiny but all-powerful slice of the electorate in England, they have forgotten all about the kind of people who created their party in the first place.

Clearly the New Labour leadership is engaged in the game of "triangulation". They would have been told that the most important sections of the electorate in Middle England want a more "credible" line on the economy and cuts, defying the reality that austerity is choking off the economic recovery across the whole of Europe. It looks like this stance has driven more of their voters away than it has gained any. If you want pay restraint and cuts, you may as well vote for the Tories from whom you'll get the real deal.

Furthermore, in the British system (as in much of the world) a leader's personality and style is as important as any political agenda, and affects how they can communicate their vision. News is now breaking that Ed Miliband's personal popularity is at abysmal levels across the different nations in the British state. In Wales he is not dissimilar from Nick Clegg in terms of being disliked.

So even though austerity is completely failing to turn the economy around in the whole of Europe, people don't understand what Labour's alternative is. In recent weeks all three of the UK party leaders have said they want "better capitalism" (Ed Miliband), "responsible capitalism" (David Cameron) and a "John Lewis economy" (Nick Clegg). If they all believe in the same thing, we should expect that one of these visions will be implemented in the British state at some point. Except as John Dixon says, the debate will simply move on to whatever else is the flavour of the month.

The only silver lining for Labour is in London where Ken Livingstone is now ahead of Boris Johnson, having set out an agenda that is clear and easy to understand- and crucially, different to Boris Johnson's platform.

Labour politics has an essential role to play in mitigating the excesses of capital. Trade unionism and democratic socialism in particular is central to Welsh history, as Gwyn Alf Williams pointed out. You have to ask, what is worth preserving about Britain if the electoral system means that only a conservative party can ever rule? Social democratic parties in generally are usually supposed to betray their support once they get into government, but in this instance Labour have pulled off the feat of doing it in opposition.

The latest True Wales foray

True Wales have made one of their first major statements since they found themselves on the wrong side in last year's referendum.

There are two sides of the coin when it comes to True Wales. In one sense, it is refreshing that they are an alternative voice to the consensus that loosely supports devolution. With the referendum and the tactics involved in that out of the way, there is a chance for them to make public statements and contribute to democracy in Wales without having the discussion centred around wild claims or inflatable pigs. On Twitter, they offer a non-establishment commentary about politics and are usually respectful and engaging with other people from the political community. The claims they make range from the fanciful to the crude, but they have a right to have their say.

But the other side of the coin is that no amount of good will towards their participation in the debate can disguise the fact that they don't obviously represent anyone. They don't have a grassroots or a rank-and-file, and it is difficult to imagine that they have a membership base anywhere near the likes of the Communists, the Greens or the minor political parties in Wales.

Insofar as the extensive research by Richard Wyn Jones and Roger Scully shows that there isn't some kind of non-voting "silent majority" lurking out there that wants a return to flat out London rule, True Wales doesn't have a discernible way of achieving its complicated programme of enhanced grassroots devolution in Wales. There isn't a political party in existence that advocates their unwieldy platform of "better devolution through having less powers", and they wouldn't ever put up candidates in elections. Initially there was an understanding that they emerged from the virulently British Labour tradition in the south-east of Wales. But these days it appears that their leading activists identify increasingly with UKIP, because they have argued that a nationalist conspiracy exists in the Labour party in Wales, and they have taken up libertarian stances on issues like taxation, the size of the state and also a Eurosceptic position.

But who could argue with Rachel Banner's "I told you so" proposition that days after the referendum was over, we had more Assembly Members, Welsh taxes, and an abolition of the Welsh Office being discussed by mainstream Welsh politicians? True Wales are keen to point out that Carwyn Jones spent alot of time saying that fiscal powers weren't on the menu.

In truth, the First Minister also linked a "Yes" vote to the possibility of Wales being fairly funded, very early on in the campaign. So when Rachel Banner claims that "the Holtham Report was treated as some dirty little secret to be kept under the Assembly mattress till the referendum campaign was over", that isn't strictly true. The stronger voices that played down the referendum could be found on the Westminster benches, where Labour's MPs portrayed it as a purely anti-Tory vote. True Wales spent their campaign calling for those same MPs to have power over Wales-only legislation.

Further, an elephant in the room for True Wales is that the Silk Commission which True Wales is now complaining about was instigated at Westminster, rather than by the Assembly Members that they regard with suspicion.

On the economy, Rachel Banner's point that "the more sluggish the Welsh economy, the more politicians will call for macro-economic powers...Our economic debilitation is a golden opportunity to make a nationalist strategy seem credible", reads like a statement of the obvious. There's an inaccuracy when it comes to "macro-economic powers", however. True Wales has made this glaring error before because macro-economic policy refers to powers over currency, interest rates and monetary policy. At a time when even the SNP will leave these powers with Westminster, it's implausible to claim that Welsh politicians have been calling for them, and it's actually impossible for the Silk Commission to advocate them.

In closing, True Wales is always worth looking at because they're the only voice openly opposing the principle of self-government for Wales, and they will always get some coverage by default. But it would be a mistake to suggest that they have a point or that they represent a significant part of the Welsh people. It's ironic that an organisation which exists to criticise the "Welsh bubble" has literally only ever been heard of by people that inhabit it. What is more interesting is that the anti-devolution tendency in the Labour party appears to be asleep at the moment. Even with drastic cuts to Wales' representation at Westminster looming, there is no sign of the Kim Howells-style current. Have they now been finished off for good?

The Balkanisation of England

One of the most pressing issues in the current revolution in the British state is that the English question now seriously needs to be addressed. In recent years, to even suggest there was such a thing as an English question was to invite ridicule and accusations of right-wing nationalism.

But now the scenario of a reconfigured British state is unavoidable. Paul Murphy, the Labour MP for Torfaen, has come around to the idea of devolution to the English regions. This is the second time he has expressed this sentiment. In one sense it is welcome that he is contributing to these debates, as a former Minister involved in constitutional affairs and the peace process in Ireland.

However, English public opinion appears to support an English Parliament, not regional assemblies. Murphy obviously supports regional devolution because Westminster is virtually already an "English Parliament" numerically speaking, and will be even more so when the numbers of non-English MPs are reduced. His argument is a utilitarian one, to enable the British state to function better, and to possibly give Labour a number of regions (particularly in the north of England) in which it could consolidate power. The Labour MP Wayne David recently made similar points along these lines in the debate about the Silk Commission, arguing that devolution was about bringing democracy closer to the people, rather than about national identity.

That is a comfort blanket argument. The fact that Wales and Scotland have distinct national identities was and remains a huge factor in making devolution begin and then deepen. In England there are relatively strong regional identities (Yorkshire immediately springs to mind), but a broader English patriotism and desire for English nationhood appears to be in the ascendancy as a response to the decay of Britishness. It isn't clear that people in England would vote to dilute the centralism of Westminster. Rather than wanting to assert valid regional identities, public opinion in England might well support reclaiming Westminster as an English, not a British, parliamentary body.

While this is all a welcome debate, and shows that things are shifting, it puzzles me that those kind of Labour MPs always used to talk about Welsh nationalism as promoting the "Balkanisation of Britain"- dividing a great nation into fragmented parts. How then are those same men now keeping straight faces as they campaign for the Balkanisation of England?

Wales at the Dublin summit

The British-Irish Council, formed as part of the peace process, has traditionally attracted little attention. But the fact that the British state is currently disintegrating means that today's summit in Dublin is at the top of the political agenda. We should get used to these kind of multilateral meetings because this is increasingly how the British Isles is going to look when you have each nation now increasingly developing self-government. This week's MP cuts in Wales are a part of this trend. The focus is moving away from London rule towards home rule, in line with Ron Davies' famous prediction.

The Guardian is carrying a report about today's Dublin meeting and it is the most-read story on their website. The discussions between Alex Salmond and Nick Clegg dominated the day, but the Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones also made some comments which represent an evolution of his views about the future of Wales.

These developments raise all kind of questions. For decades now Wales has been submerged within an awkward union state, but how many people were aware that places like Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man have native governments more powerful than our own? Whatever you think about Welsh independence, it does not follow that we have to be stuck in a nightmarish "England and Wales" entity if and when Scotland achieves either independence or devolution-max.

Furthermore, the detail of the summit shows how much things are changing. Martin McGuinness is still considered a terrorist in some circles, yet he was at today's summit meeting with Alex Salmond, Carwyn Jones, and Nick Clegg as the Deputy First Minister, along with his Unionist colleague Peter Robinson, all on statesmanlike terms. This demonstrates that old tensions can be bridged by the various nations and territories working together. Alex Salmond for his part has always avoided referring to the situation in Ireland, because of the sectarian implications in Scotland, but speaking to RTÉ today he said that "I am sure many people in Ireland will remember that sometimes people who are in leadership positions in big countries find it very difficult not to bully small countries. What we have seen over the last week is a most extraordinary attempt to bully and intimidate Scotland by Westminster politicians." The sub-text here is that although the SNP rightly wants to be as normal and inoffensive as possible in gaining independence, there is a problem in that David Cameron represents an imperialist country and will do all he can to interfere with Scotland's affairs.

Turning to Carwyn Jones' comments, while I won't pretend they are official Labour policy, they represent another change in his public statements. The Welsh Government website preceeded today's summit by saying that the main item for discussion would be youth unemployment. Something tells me that won't be the main news story tomorrow in the Welsh press. Was it planned for him to start talking about a redrawn residual British state?

Instead of covering his remarks on youth unemployment, the Guardian says that:

Jones told the Guardian that a convention should look at following the example of the US. The House of Commons would be balanced by a new upper house that would ensure Wales and Northern Ireland would be strongly represented. "Why not have an upper house with equal representation from England, Wales and Northern Ireland – same as the Senate," he said. "It would be more of a federal structure. It is up to the people of Scotland what they do but it is certainly not the case that somehow things would carry on as normal."

The First Minister's previous vision for Wales' future was extremely limited, in setting out a conservative system of three tests, which looked more like three entirely reactionary and subjective hurdles any new powers for Wales would have to leap. This vision, flawed as it was, has already been overtaken by events. I could say alot more about his stances on various issues about devolution but it's enough to say that the Welsh national interest needs to become his main principle. That is not the same thing as the Labour party's interest, and on that basis I simply don't see a long-term future for Wales having a Secretary of State or Wales Office, whether it's Cheryl Gillan or Peter Hain.

Another issue here is that Carwyn Jones' US-style solution might have to apply even if Scotland rejects independence and votes for devo-max. Scotland under devo-max presumably would lose almost all of its House of Commons representation, enough to tilt the electoral map irreversibly in favour of England.

These developments aren't necessarily a major problem for Carwyn Jones, who would become the First Minister of a relatively self-governing Wales in some kind of re-negotiated union with England. They do however present a problem for the reactionary brigade of Labour MPs from Wales who won't really have a purpose in the future and are doomed to "wither away", as Marx would have said.

The bigger question then if we have a re-negotiated UK after Scotland leaves is does Wales become a European Union member-state on its own terms? A post-Scotland UK will be too ideologically diverse to have a consistent policy on the EU. It won't make political sense for the three remaining UK constituent parts to be represented by the same Prime Minister in Europe. Carwyn Jones has already set the scene for this by arguing that Cameron is "isolationist" when it comes to Europe. What is clear to me is that the idea that governing Wales would now just be about "delivery" has been shown to be massively flawed.