The Edinburgh Agreement

Don’t be fooled by this afternoon’s warm smiles and handshakes. The Scottish independence debate just got serious. After months of meetings and bland statements hailing on-going negotiations as “constructive”, David Cameron and Alex Salmond have just signed the so-called ‘Edinburgh Agreement’ that transfers the necessary powers to the Scottish Parliament to enable them to legally hold a referendum on Scottish independence.

Both sides have claimed victory in the negotiations. The nationalists have persuaded the unionists to agree to it being ‘made in Scotland’ and extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. On the other side of the coin, the unionists have persuaded the nationalists to accept the oversight of the Electoral Commission and that the referendum should consist of a single question.

So what has been agreed?

• Westminster will legislate to temporarily devolve power, through a Section 30 Order, to Holyrood for a single-question independence referendum to be held by the end of 2014.
• The Scottish Parliament will have control over the wording, timing and franchise of the referendum,
• Both Governments agree that the rules and standards set out in Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act provide the basis for setting the limits for campaign funding in the regulated period
• The Electoral Commission will be given a significant advisory role including over the wording of the question, the running of the referendum and areas including campaign finance

What is notably missing from today’s agreement is the apparent preferred option of the majority of Scots. Opinion polls have continually shown that the majority of Scots wish further devolution but within the UK. Today’s agreement does nothing to match these ambitions.

Looking forward, the key for both sides now becomes how well they communicate their vision for a future Scotland. If the Unionist hint at further devolution post a potential No vote, and fail to deliver, an unwritten contract with the Scots electorate will be broken with potentially far reaching consequences. On the other hand, if the nationalists paint a picture too similar to the status quo (keeping the pound, keeping the Queen, BoE as the lender of last resort etc.) many will ask what’s the point in independence?

While the above clauses of the ‘Edinburgh Agreement’ will dominate tomorrow’s headlines, the finality of this should not be lost on anyone. By signing on the dotted line this afternoon, Cameron and Salmond have agreed to respect the result come what may. No legal challenges, no differing interpretations of the result, no confusion. At the end of the day, albeit in two years’ time, Cameron will go down in history as the man who lost/saved the Union, while Salmond the man who succeeded/failed to deliver independence.

An answer to the question of 1 or 2 questions?

In an interview with an LA newspaper Alex Salmond has given his strongest indication yet that there will only be one question on the 2014 independence ballot paper.

Depending on your political affiliation you will either view this as a “humiliating defeat” or part of a clever strategic long game that will ultimately deliver independence. In reality the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

To the opponents of independence, Alex Salmond pushed for a ‘third-option’ and failed. The SNP case was hindered by there being no single coherent body relentlessly pushing a case for the inclusion of a third-option, but ultimately his olive branch wilted through lack of vocal support.

Unionists have portrayed Salmond and the SNP as wanting a consolation prize. To Unionist’s this has always been seen as recognition of the supposed weakness of the independence argument. Not confident in delivering independence in a straight Yes/No, Salmond wanted a third face saving option. This is now off the table. The result being that Salmond has opened the SNP and other pro-independence bodies up to the possibility of a devastating defeat in 2014 (if current polling is too be believed).

To supporters of independence, Salmond has been strategically very astute. By pushing for an option he knew would be unacceptable to the Unionists, he has painted Scottish Labour, his only real Scottish rivals, as anti-devolution. Opinion polls consistently show Scots want more powers.  Scottish Labour has chosen to ignore this and instead ganged up with the Tories to deny ordinary Scots their reasonable demand. This in turn feeds into the message that only the SNP stands up for, and listens to, Scots and gives the party a platform for 2015.

He has also managed to successfully fan the flames of internal party disputes. It is no secret that large parts of Scottish Labour want further devolution and some are increasingly vocal in opposing the leadership’s decision to work with the Tories and not support a third-option (Red Paper Collective). Additionally, one can argue that having had the third-option denied, the natural home for Devo-Max supporting voters now becomes the Yes camp; as only the Yes camp is offering change, rather than the flawed status quo. Evidence of this can already be seen by the stance taken by Clyde Blowers tycoon Jim McColl.

Arguably the real losers to this settlement are the general electorate. None of the Unionist parties have a clear vision let alone a timetable for delivering further powers to Holyrood despite the evident public support for the move. There are vague promises and commitments but nothing more substantial.

In having just the one question the UK Government will see this as an opportunity to settle the independence question for a generation and more. The SNP will of course continue to push for independence (in the event of a No vote) but a more gradualist approach would need to be adopted; support for further devolution now rather than full blown independence now. 

To this order there are no readymade bed-fellows to deliver further devolution. Faced with the prospect of independence, Scotland’s other political parties are focused on the immediate threat (independence) rather than discussing and determining future transfers of power. The result being that further devolution risks being pushed into the long grass again.

FMQs: Review

Today’s FMQ’s begun with collective congratulations to Scotland’s Olympians, Paralympians and Andy Murray. The collective goodwill then disappeared.

In a strong performance by Johann Lamont, she led with an independent Scotland’s position within the EU. The SNP has consistently argued that on independence Scotland would automatically be a member and not have to join the crisis hit Euro.  However, this position was thrown into doubt yesterday first by the President of the European Commission and then his official spokesman.

During an interview on Radio 4 yesterday, Jose Manuel Barroso stated that any “new state” would have to apply for membership. This was then followed by Olivier Bailly, the EU Commission’s spokesman stating that “If it [the seceding country] wants to apply for EU membership then this has to be done according to the treaties and the provisions regarding accession. There are two different steps. There is a secession process under international law and the request for accession to EU member state under the EU treaties.” Its worth pointing out that after pressure from the Scottish Government, Mr Bailly backtracked slightly by stating that the EU did not interfere in internal workings of member states.

Lamont jumped on this arguing that this is clear evidence that an independent Scotland would not be guaranteed automatic membership to the EU and that it would have to join the Euro. She went on to call on the First Minister to release any legal evidence that he has received on the issue – the Scottish Government is currently fighting to prevent the release of such evidence.

Salmond’s response was simply that “Scotland is part, and will remain part of the EU” on independence. This led to possibly Lamont’s best line when she asked that if the SNP were not fighting for a “new state” in the form of an independent Scotland, what have they been arguing for, for the past 100 years? Surely the whole point of independence is that Scotland becomes a “new state”? Choosing to ignore this jibe, Salmond provided a personal guarantee that the Scottish Government’s White Paper on independence (due this time next year) will provide full details of Scotland’s position in the EU based on legal advice.

Given the Scottish Conservative’s position on Europe, it was no wonder Ruth Davidson decided not to continue with Lamont’s line of attack. Instead she led on patient treatment within the NHS.

This Week in Scotland

This week saw the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Willie Rennie and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) lock horns over the independence debate. Reacting to correspondence reportedly seen by The Herald newspaper, Rennie called on SCVO’s CEO Martin Sime to resign, alleging the latter was secretly “working closely with the SNP” to secure a second question on the ballot paper come 2014.  

The incriminating (in Mr Rennie’s opinion) exchange between Mr Salmond’s special adviser Alex Bell and Mr Sime is based on an internal report from the Unite trade union, which suggested the majority of its members favoured a second question on devo-max. The report was attached to an email from Mr Bell which simply said “read this”. In normal circumstance this would not be an issue.

In recent months, however, the increasing impression across Scotland is that the SNP are keen to secure a second question. The SCVO is the force behind the Future of Scotland group, a coalition of “civic society” organisations that vocally supports a two-question poll. With this in mind, it doesn’t take a great leap of thought to see how the exchange could be interpreted to fit this narrative.

Mr Rennie and his Unionist colleagues are keen to see a straight Yes/No poll, so any suggestion that the SNP are aiming for something different is jumped on as a sign that the SNP are “scared” that they cannot win a straight Yes/No poll. This line of attack is not new. As soon as the Scottish Government’s consultation was launched accusations were laid that the SNP really wanted two questions despite the First Minister’s instance that he is all for a straightforward single question.

In a strongly worded retort the SCVO branded Mr Rennie’s comments as “preposterous”, “fanciful” and that interfering in the affairs of an independent organisation was “unworthy of a public leader”. Strong stuff.

Sticking with the independence debate, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown came out of self-imposed semi-retirement to warn against devo-max and attack independence. He claimed that the former would inevitably lead to a race to the bottom that would hurt the most vulnerable and poorest of society the most. On the latter he claimed that the Union’s strength was in its ability to “pool resources” with the whole becoming greater than the individual parts. As examples he cited the UKs ability to come together to deal with the banks and the Olympics as reasons to maintain the Union. The unspoken emphasis being that Scotland would struggle to achieve such success if it went it alone.

Away from independence, Alasdair Hay has become the first Chief Officer of the new single Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. The announcement comes on the back of the Scottish Government successfully passing the Police and Fire Reform Scotland act that looks to reduce duplication and increase efficiencies by merging Scotland’s police and fire services.

The Question of a Second Question

The weekend’s news reports have not made for pleasant reading for the Yes to Independence campaign, as internal debate about the desire for a second question in the independence referendum has now broken out in public.

The idea of a second question being posed to the Scottish electorate at that ballot box in 2014, asking whether they support an extension of the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament, has long been mooted. What exact powers would be devolved have also been up for debate for just as long, with “Devo Max” and “Devo-Plus” being put forward as possible solutions. These proposals are wide ranging. but would at their heart see Scotland become responsible for raising its own taxes, shifting power away from the block grant given to Holyrood by the UK Government.

The attraction of a second question is understandable for the pro-Independence camp. With current polling suggesting that support for independence is slipping down to the 30% mark, winning an increase in powers would be seen as a decent “second prize”.

However pushing for a second question would allow critics of the Yes campaign to suggest that they have already thrown in the towel and don’t expect to win the independence vote. This opinion is now being voiced in public by prominent supporters of independence.

Dennis Canavan and Blair Jenkins, two of the leaders of the Yes campaign have come out against supporting a second question. Former SNP leader Gordon Wilson, a noted critic of Alex Salmond, has also expressed an opinion that a question on extra powers would be a “cop-out”. This has been exacerbated by the Scottish Independence Convention which wants to see the second question rejected on the basis that it will muddy the waters of the campaign when going forward.

Indications in the media have up to now suggested that the First Minister is supportive of a second question. These breaks in the ranks, which are highly unusual for the usually well-disciplined pro-independence camp, suggest there is a divide between supporting one question and going for broke, or taking a more realpolitik stance and expanding the powers of the Parliament.

Supporters of the second question have said it will show the true will of the Scottish people, for more say over their own lives, but within the context of the United Kingdom. It would further allow the Scottish Government to better target resources and demonstrate competency for tax raising and spending.  

However there are advantages to an all or nothing style campaign. The messages will be clearer and better understood by the electorate, the campaign won’t find itself divided on how to promote the second question, and it will prevent accusations that they do not expect to win the independence vote. Furthermore by not having a second question on the ballot the SNP would be able to publish a commitment to expanding the powers of the Scottish Parliament in their manifesto for the 2016 election. It is unlikely that they could propose holding another referendum so soon after 2014 (should they of course lose that one).

It is unlikely any decision will be made until the findings of the referendum consultation over the summer have been published. But the events of recent weeks will certainly give the First Minister plenty to ponder over the recess period.

By Rob

Launch of Better Together Campaign

The pro-Union campaign was today officially launched in Edinburgh, with former UK Chancellor Alistair Darling MP making a speech setting out the case for Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom.

During his speech, Darling told those attending that voting yes for independence would lead to “a one-way ticket to send our children to a deeply uncertain destination”. He further argued, perhaps in a hint towards further devolved powers, that Scotland could have the “best of both worlds” by staying within the UK.

He rounded on the SNP, accusing them of having no clue as to what independence actually meant, despite having been in existence for 80 years. He also batted aside the sound bite delivered at last week’s FMQs that the Labour party would rather have a “Tory government to self-government”. Darling argued that the independence vote wasn’t about short term governments, but rather about “making history”.

It is clear the Better Together campaign will be portraying the vote as something which transcends the UK government of the day, and will emphasise the finality of the decision to voters. Darling’s speech was considered, passionate and gave a strong defence for the Union. With the SNP and the Yes campaign dominating the agenda, Darling seems intent on taking the initiative and tackling them head on.  There was nothing in Darling’s speech to recognise the debate on Devo+ or Devo Max today. While this omission was sensible so not to complicate the campaign’s basic message, a unified vision of ‘a stronger Scotland, a United Kingdom’ will also need to be articulated by the unionist parties over the coming months – be this the status quo or a strengthening of the current devolution settlement.

Perhaps the most notable contrast to the Yes campaign launch, held at a local cinema, and with a host of celebrities attending, was the focus on normal people. Scots’ young and old, from all backgrounds, gave their experiences of living in Scotland and what it meant to them, all within a pro-union context of course. It is clear that the pro-Union campaign wants to be seen to speaking up for the people on the street, and portray the Yes campaign as being focused on elitism. Indeed leaked emails over the weekend have shown senior supporters of the YesScotland team lambast its launch for not speaking to ordinary voters.

Both Ruth Davidson for the Scottish Conservatives and Willie Rennie for the Scottish Liberal Democrats, attended, and it remains to be seen just how active a roll they will play in the campaign. With even today’s launch being overshadowed by comments from David Cameron over welfare reform, the popularity of both parties remains considerably low in Scotland.

The task is now about increasing awareness of the arguments for staying as part of the Union. At present the Yes to Independence campaign has more money and people on the ground. It will therefore be an uphill struggle for Better Together to gain the initiative, but with two years to go there is everything to play for.

By Rob

There’s no Green in Team

The problem with expectations is that they are hardly ever met. This turn of phrase can easily be tagged onto Patrick Harvie and the Scottish Green’s following this weekend’s decision to defer its formal support from the Yes campaign.

Two weeks ago, Harvie stood next to Alex Salmond on the Cineworld stage as the pro-independence campaign was official launched. On agreeing to attend, Harvie no doubt expected the “big tent” “cross-party” inclusive campaign promised by the SNP would mean exactly that. While recognising the dominance of the SNP, he and (by extension) his party, would have anticipated a role in the organisation and the direction of the campaign. Well, two weeks on, it appears that these expectations were not met.

Speaking over the weekend, Harvie raised concerns that the campaign was not genuinely inclusive commenting “We can’t just be there to wave the flag for someone else’s campaign. We’re either involved in shaping it or we’re not”. Harvie also derided the lack of debate within the campaign on issues such as the retention of the monarchy and the pound. These comments highlight the much trumpeted theme that the pro-independence campaign is/would simply be a “cheerleading” vehicle for the SNP. In response to these criticisms the SNP has gone out of its way to highlight the “big tent” appeal and makeup of the Yes campaign in a direct attempt to alleviate these concerns and thus attract wider support from outwith the party ranks.

Given the political and financial clout of the SNP, it is unsurprising that behind photo calls and stage appearances, the Yes Campaign is very much dominated by party officials. The campaign is driven by the SNPs election guru and Westminster leader, Angus Robertson MP, with the support of former advisers Jennifer Dempsie and Stephen Noon. With no official head, the day to day running is left very much in the hands of these key individuals.

The pro-Union campaign has quickly branded the pro-independence campaign as a “shambles” with Patricia Ferguson MSP linking it to further the theme that it’s “Alex’s way or the highway” – a theme Johann Lamont, Ruth Davidson and Willie Rennie have all used in recent FMQs exchanges. 

The Greens remain a pro-independence party, which advocates a multi-option referendum. They will now vote at the annual conference in October whether to formally sever or strengthen their links to the Yes campaign.

Photo courtesy of the Scotsman

This Week in Scotland

The issue of independence once again dominated proceedings this week as, in a largely symbolic move, the parliament voted in favour of Scotland becoming independent. While the vote was branded a “milestone” by the pro-independence camp the mathematical composition of the parliament meant the result was never in doubt. Though the debate continues to be dominated by assertions and beliefs rather than fact, it was important in the fact that the pro-Union camp finally began to emphasise the advantages of the Union rather than concentrating on the risks of leaving.

This morning the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), Scotland’s largest teaching union, has come out in favour of allowing 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in a referendum on independence.  Meanwhile Sir Tom Farmer (Kwikfit) and Jim McColl (Clyde Blowers) waded into the independence debate this week by publically commenting that they would only support independence if a third option was not on the ballot paper. While the UK Government wants the referendum to be a simple Yes/No to ensure clarity of result, there is a growing clamour for a third option (devo-max/devo-plus) to be included to represent the views of the electorate who wish to remain within the Union but see further devolution. The Prime Minister has already tried to head this off by saying that he would be open to exploring further devolution, particularly fiscal powers, but only after a Yes/No vote. The Scottish Government is open to a third option if that’s what the electorate want. Unsurprisingly, given Farmer’s and McColl’s previous support for the SNP, the pro-Union camp immediately jumped on their comments as an example of the lack of support for independence in the business community.

Finally, the Treasury slapped down the SNPs claim that an independent Scotland would have a say over monetary policy if it retained the pound and the Bank of England as the lender of last resort. The claims were made by Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon during a TV debate and then backed up by Alex Salmond during a heated FMQs yesterday. Given the on-going Eurozone crisis, the SNP are keen to dispel any comparisons of a monetary union without political union.

UK Government publishes Independence responses

In January the UK Government launched its own consultation on Scottish Independence. The consultation was not about Scotland’s place in the UK or the implications of a referendum. Rather it focused on the mechanics of ensuring a legal, fair and decisive referendum. Today, the UK Government published the near 3,000 responses and the action it will take as a consequence.

At the heart of the consultation was the question of legality. As outlined by Michael Moore in a statement to the House in mid-January the UK Government believes that the Scottish Parliament does not have the legal authority to hold a referendum on independence. The Scottish Government fiercely disagrees with this analysis. As such, the consultation sought views on how the UK Government could provide the Scottish Parliament with the necessary powers to hold the referendum in a fair and decisive manner. This would take the form of a Section 30 order, a process backed by 63% of respondents. Through doing so, the UK Government hope that this will put the result, whichever way it goes, beyond all doubt and importantly legal challenge.

Arguably the four main bones of contention relate to whether there should be more than one question on the ballot paper; the timing of the referendum; oversight of the referendum; and the franchise. The UK Government’s consultation provides resounding endorsements for all of these with the exception of the latter.

Dealing with these issues in order, the consultation responses show a clear endorsement (75%) for the proposal that there should only be a single question on the ballot paper. This is mainly down to respondents accepting the UK Government’s position that independence and devolution are two separate issues. One seeks to strengthen the Union, the other end it. While the Scottish Government’s consultation states that it favours a one question ballot paper, they have not ruled out a multiple-option paper if there is deemed enough public support. The UK Government is keen to avoid a multiple-option ballot paper on the grounds that it produces uncertainty to the result.

On the issue of timing, 70% of respondents, including a large number of businesses, backed the notion that the referendum should happen sooner rather than later. Under current Scottish Government proposals, the referendum shall occur in the autumn of 2014. The UK Government believe that this could be brought forward and have even published a proposed timetable that would see the ballot occurring before autumn 2013. The UK Government believe, rightly or wrongly, that the uncertainty caused by independence is harming economic growth and putting jobs at risk. Unsurprisingly, the Scottish Government disagree, highlighting a number of significant recent investments by large companies including GSK, Amazon and Gamesa.

In terms of oversight the UK Government’s consultation shows 80% support for the Electoral Commission to provide electoral oversight to ensure the referendum is fair and conducted to the highest possible standards. Concerns have already been aired that the Scottish Government’s favoured question is weighted. The involvement of the Electoral Commission, particularly in reviewing any possible question, would ensure that there is public confidence in the outcome. The Scottish Government has already moved slightly over this issue of oversight.

Finally, on the issue of who should vote in the referendum, the UK Government is quite clear that the franchise should not be changed. In other words, the same people who elected the current composition of the Scottish Parliament should vote on whether they wish to remain within the UK. Indeed, 71% of respondents expressed the view that only those residents in Scotland should be entitled to vote. This comes in the face of suggestions that Scots currently residing outside of Scotland should be entitled to vote. However, the lines become blurred on the issue of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. Although the UK consultation did not ask for opinions on this matter, 44% of respondents backed the Scottish Government proposal to allow 16 and 17 year olds the vote, compared with 47% who were against.

While today’s publication will be used by some as justification for having the referendum earlier, all eyes now turn to the on-going Scottish Government’s consultation.

In Scotland’s wake? Wales, Plaid Cymru and the independence question.

If Alex Salmond has succeeded in one thing, it is putting the Scottish question at the heart of the UK constitutional debate.  In addition to dominating the political landscape in Scotland, the First Minister’s plans for an independence referendum have cultivated constitutional soul-searching across the United Kingdom.  Perhaps the most intriguing dynamic of this reflection is the developing debate in Wales about the future of the devolution settlement.  To what extent will the Welsh Dragon follow the Scottish Unicorn into unchartered political waters?

Much depends on the presence of a credible political force to harness and develop nationalist sentiment into a mandate and majority to replicate the SNP.  Enter Plaid Cymru.  The Welsh nationalist party presents, if anything, Wales’ best hope as a vehicle for constitutional separatism.  But here the similarities with the SNP end.  Whilst the SNP has continuously advocated an absolute conviction for an independent Scottish state, Plaid’s constitutional aspirations are relatively ambiguous and dimmed by the conflicting attraction of governing in coalition.  A common comparison is that whilst the SNP is a state-building party, Plaid Cymru is a nation-building party, rooted in cultural nationalism and linguistic revival.  

Whilst the party maintains an official goal of independence within the EU, this variance in constitutional aspiration has manifested itself in the race to succeed Ieuan Wyn Jones AM as leader of the party.  The three candidates represent the face of contemporary Welsh nationalism and the debate on how best to advance the position of Wales and its people.  With a previous spell as party leader already under his belt, the former Meirionnydd MP Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas AM has cautioned against the party becoming distracted by mythical visions of an independent Welsh state, advocating instead a focus on using the tools at hand to deliver change.  At a hustings event in Cardiff Bay on 21 February, the former Assembly Presiding Officer pointed across the harbour to the Senedd, remarking “The future of Wales isn’t over the water in Avalon, it’s in that building.”  For Elis-Thomas, Plaid’s experience in the early years of devolution was one of “leadership failure,” adding: “For some reason Plaid succeeded in winning devolution and didn’t realise what to do with it.”

For Ceredigion AM Elin Jones, the answer to that question is clear; devolution offers Wales a stepping stone to separation, with Plaid Cymru needing to “define and agree democratically within our party our own route map towards independence”.  Whilst the former Rural Affairs Minister cautions against Wales following in Scotland’s shadow, Ms Jones has suggested that two consecutive election victories would mandate a referendum on independence for Wales.

And then there is Leanne Wood. Raised in the industrial Rhondda Valley, the socialist former probation officer would, if successful, become the first party leader unable to speak fluent Welsh.  But this, say her supporters, is her potential strength, broadening the appeal of the party beyond the linguistic heartlands of its core membership.  Famous for being ejected from the Chamber for referring to Her Majesty the Queen as “Mrs Windsor”, the South Wales Central AM is hugely popular with the party’s younger members.  Whilst aspiring to create a sovereign Welsh republic, she contends that ‘real independence’ through economic decentralisation and greater autonomy over resources presents the best opportunity to tackle economic hardship and social disparity. 

The current leadership contest is therefore crucial in shaping Plaid Cymru’s response to events in Scotland.  However, the mood of the wider electorate will ultimately, as is the case in Scotland, be the most significant force in shaping Wales’ constitutional future.  And here any similarities with Scotland evaporate once again.  Appetite for independence in Wales remains minimal despite the on-going debate on the future of the UK, hovering at around 10% in most polls.  A recent ICM poll placed the figure as low as 7%.  Ask the same question about the future of Wales if Scotland were to gain independence, and the figure rises to just 12%.  Perhaps more surprising is that even amongst Plaid voters only around a third support the idea of a fully independent Wales, food for thought for the party’s leadership contenders.

The SNP’s calls for an option of further devolution within the UK, so-called ‘devo-max’, raises the prospect of a substantially reconfigured union, and with it the question of the position of Wales.  Here, Wales sits in a unique position; caught between the separatist ambitions of Salmond’s administration in Edinburgh, and England with little experience of devolution and perceptions of an unfairly balanced settlement.  It is in this void that Welsh politicians perhaps have their best change at influencing the constitutional direction of the UK.  Anxious to maintain important levers of power in Cardiff Bay yet keen to remain within the social and economic framework of the UK, it is not inconceivable that Welsh politicians may look to gradual British federalisation in an attempt to preserve Wales’ status as a devolved nation within a wider social union. 

In considering the potential for a level of fiscal autonomy in Scotland, the Calman Commission mooted the idea of broad social-based citizenship as the basis for a reformed UK. The newly-formed Silk Commission, currently exploring the possibility of limited fiscal powers will also offer further suggestions on the future of the devolution settlement in Wales.  Moreover, federalism appears to be gaining currency among key opinion formers within Welsh public life. In a new book, senior Welsh Conservative AM David Melding explores the possibility of a federal Britain.  First Minister of Wales Carwyn Jones AM recently announced that he has written to Prime Minister David Cameron MP calling for the establishment of a commission to consider the constitutional structure of the entire UK.  At a St David’s Day press conference in Cardiff Bay, the First Minister added: “I believe that there is a case for reforming the UK’s central institutions to reflect the reality of a looser UK with multiple centres of democratic accountability.”  The challenge, therefore, is how to organise and plan for the future governance of the UK; constitutional conventions may be formed to seek consensus but this remains difficult when separatist movements are a legitimate strand of the constitutional debate.  Then there is England which, with circa 85% of the UK’s population and the lion’s share of seats at Westminster, remains the elephant in the room when it comes to the future of the United Kingdom. 

Regardless of the referendum result, the possibility of Scottish secession will continue to drive constitutional debate in all four corners of the UK.  For Wales’ politicians, the challenge is how to respond.  The Plaid Cymru leadership outcome will to some extent shape that party’s position and the wider political debate in Wales.  However, perhaps more telling will be the response of the unionist parties who urgently need to offer a stable, inclusive and alternative vision on how the Lion, the Unicorn and the Dragon can live happily ever after.          

Guest Post from Matt in our Cardiff office