Unionism vs Devolution

 

EU,-UK-and-Wales-flags

Or Centralism vs Separatism

In terms of the political creed these words represent they are ultimately inconsequential. Though in political debate in Wales these concepts loom large. I will argue that fundamentally there is little difference between the two. so what on Earth is the debate about? Yet this week a political shower has been thrown up in the debate about how powers that the EU will longer have responsibility for post-Brexit are devolved to the UK. Notably agriculture and the environment. The issue is that these areas are currently the responsibility of the Welsh government in UK terms, but most of the rules and regulations are currently set at EU level.

Unionism in a Welsh context means supporting or furthering the union of the United Kingdom. Unionism, party politically, is generally the preserve of conservatives and right wing people and tends to favour the British state (the UK). Whereas Devolution is generally the preserve of the left wing people and favours decision making made at a more local level, Wales or it’s regions.

On principle, I am neither a Unionist or a Devolutionist, it’s one of those spectra things I keep talking about. It’s an area I am a good Social Democrat and take a centrist pragmatic position: In a democracy power should reside at the lowest sensible level and then consensual passed up to wider bodies where the benefits of mutual cooperation and economies of scale are manifest. In today’s Wales I am regarded as a Devolutionist as I believe that centralised big government has too much political power.

The thing is, locally accountable decision making is a good thing and so is cooperating more widely. A functional democracy should in theory achieve the optimum balance over where responsibility should lie for decisions on any issue. I can’t get my head around why there seem to be so many people adopting the extreme fundamentalist positions on this, that either Devolution is bad or Unionism is bad, when the answer is neither, they are both good, provided one doesn’t go too far and balance is achieved. If you adopt the extreme position and enforce it then no-one can stop you when you go too far in ideological fundamentalism over practicality.

The case of Welsh agriculture is one of the areas that is  currently being debated. Largely because the UK government have faffed around indecisively so much with Brexit that suddenly decisions have to be made without sufficient time to debate and scrutinise them. If you are European you will be aware of how the EU subsides agricultural production in the EU. There is an awful lot wrong with how it is done, but the systems have been adapted to. Brexit presents an opportunity to improve agriculture in Wales and the rest of the UK, but handled badly could lead to a disaster, especially as the UK haven’t committed to continuing the subsidy system as is until a better system can be put worked out and put in place.

Welsh farming is broadly very different to that of a typical farm in the UK as a whole. Wales mostly consists of clayey uplands, which are generally poor for growing crops, but fantastic for grazing. So Welsh agriculture in the industrial age has adapted to be dominated by Lamb, Beef and Dairy production. In contrast with much of England with flat well drained soils, more suited to growing crops and producing Pork at industrial scales. Hence it seems sensible to have differentiated policies for how these different farming systems are regulated.

On the other hand there are benefits of having common rules and standards for mutual benefit. There is no reason why the UK government can’t produce a system that works for farmers across the UK. However there is no-one with the power to decide whether the benefits of common frameworks outweigh the losses of bespoke systems for Welsh agriculture who also has sufficient understanding of Welsh agriculture. That power should not reside with the centralised authority.

Really, this whole discussion is Brexit in a nutshell. It about this friction between unionism [top down power] and devolution [bottom up power]. The EU makes the decisions about agriculture and they don’t work terribly well for Wales. If it wasn’t for the EU’s ability to cut off Welsh produce from European markets by imposing tariffs, then the case for devolving responsibility to Wales would be fairly clear cut, Brexit or no Brexit.

The EU has spent 40 years centralising and increasing the size of it’s government and failed to identify areas where decision making would be better returned to regions. The people of the UK had zero chance to have a real say on the structure of the EU until Brexit. If you deny people a voice and then then give them a once and only lifetime chance to take power back, it is hardly surprising that people in Wales voted for Brexit. That was the clinching argument for a few of my friends. They wanted to remain in the EU, but felt they had to make use of their only opportunity to say no to what the EU has and is doing. Conversely people like myself are reluctant Remainers because we knew that the Tories were incapable of delivering a sensible Brexit that would improve things. It wasn’t really a question about membership of the EU at all! So whenever anyone asks that I should ‘accept this Tory Brexit’ I say ‘no’. It is impossible to discern what a majority decision of the people of the UK would be, what we collectively want, from a simple yes/no vote to two possibilities of which the majority wanted neither. What it did perhaps suggest was that the British wanted more devolution of decision making, or more democracy, so that the relations between Wales, the UK and the EU can come to  work better, yet that clearly isn’t what it going to happen from the Brexit process.

It’s almost the same sort of relationship between identities, or geo-political identities. My prime identity is Welsh, secondly it is British and thirdly it is European. Any other way of expressing my identity makes no sense to me. What this means is that my primary interest is seeking the economy of Wales to improve, I would also like the whole of Britain to improve too ( a little bit less and as long as it isn’t at Wales’ expense) and thus I’d like Europe to improve too for everyone benefits( again a little bit less and as long as it isn’t at Wales’ and Britain’s expense). So, decisions about Welsh agriculture should be made by the Welsh government. Where common frameworks can improve things across the UK, great, I would expect the Senedd to sign up to any such common frameworks and at a European level too, provided that there is a net benefit.

What I don’t get is what I perceive as the  Brixiteer or British Unionist position of UK first, then Wales then Europe. This only works if you are a member of the British establishment and you want the British establishment to exceed at the cost of the British nation, which seems to be what the Tories want. People outside of the establishment, why pick the middle one as the primary one? Any other combination makes little sense, such as European first, then Welsh then British. It’s not just a Welsh thing, I have friends who have Yorkshire or Norfolk as their prime identity.

The question of who should make decisions about agriculture, the Welsh government or the UK government, should be established democratically, to get the balance between centralisation and establishing  beneficial common frameworks and devolution and delivering bespoke local solutions right. Yet this isn’t how this debate is working, though this is how it should. What seems to be occurring is this facile debate between British unionism and Welsh devolutionists, when we don’t actually disagree about any actual issues, just where the decisions about them should be made, locally or at the top level. We have a centralised big state favouring Tory party and a centralising big state Jeremy Corbyn led Labour party, when Britain is imbalanced too much in favour of big state centralisers and has been for a long time. And we’ve just had a Brexit debate where devolution won over centralising decision on decisions making at UK or EU level. To follow Unionist arguments to there logical conclusions the UK would be signing up the the Eurozone, Schengen and every centralising initiative as The EU also has a U in it. It’s bonkers, yet people, such as myself arguing for Welsh independence get labelled as separatists, when that isn’t true at all.

I’m British, I have nothing against the union of the UK and I love Britain, it’s my home too which is why I care about it. I know of the benefits of having common sets of rules to facilitate trade and other things, I’m an internationalist who would love there to be no borders anywhere in the world. Simply, there are lots of challenges to face in things like Welsh agriculture in a world of climate change and a global shortage of agricultural land and we need to make the best decisions we can about that, which means listening to what Welsh farmers need, establish where, if at all, divergence in regulations is important, and I don’t trust Westminster as an institution capable of getting these things right.

That is ultimately what the whole Unionism / Devolution debate is about, It’s perhaps not about where best to make decisions, but who do you trust? I don’t trust Westminster or the EU. I don’t trust most of the the politicians in Cardiff Bay either. However the politicians in Cardiff are mostly people who live in Wales with a vested interest in making Wales better, because they actually live here in our communities, they visit the places we visit, some of them know what it’s like to live (or at least spoken with those that do) on an upland farm, so I trust them more. The argument against taking control back, seems to be that Westminster doesn’t trust the Senedd, that perhaps because they label the Welsh as separatists, they think that Wales might make decisions to diverge from sensible practise, purely for the hell of it to ‘spite the English’ or some reason, when it would make Wales suffer economically, which is just daft, perhaps they think this because they don’t live here and are thus basing decisions on a prejudice. It shouldn’t be about who you trust less, it should be about democracy and enabling a sensible assessment of where pooling rules works and where it doesn’t, when to join the union or the club and when to go it alone.

 

 

Advertisements

Melltith y Dysgwyr

Mae’n anodd i bod dysgwyr Cymraeg oherwydd dyn ni’n siarad yr iaith Cymraeg yn fford wahanol i siaradwyr iaith cyntaf. Dw i’n credu bod yr un peth yn rhwng ieithoedd i gyd. Mae siaradwyr iaith cyntaf yn defynddio mratiaith ‘Wenglish’ fel ‘rili’ ‘jyst’ a llawer o geiriau arall  a rhaid i dysgwyr druan yn defynddio’r iaith priodol.

Mae dysgwyr fel fi eisiau siarad Cymraeg yn rhugl ond dim yn fford gwahanol i pawb eraill. Dyn ni’n dysgu sut i gweud pethau yn fford priodol achos hynny ydy sut dyn ni’n dysgu, dysgu yn y fford hon yn cymorth ein feddwl am sut yr iaith yn gweithio fel sut i gweud peth yn yr gorffenol, presenol a’r dyfodol, y gramadeg (arghh!). Dyn ni’n syweddoli pan dyn ni’n dechrau siarad efo siaradwyr iaith cyntaf bod nhw’n defynddio’r iaith yn fford hollol wahanol a dim yn gweud ‘Dw i’n’ cyn pob frawdeggau.

Felly, beth ydy’r gwahaniaeth? Dw i’n meddwl bod siaradwyr iaith cyntaf yn dwyieithog go iawn. Mae gennom nhw y dewis am pa iaith y defnyddio am pob gair. Am enghraifft, rhai pobl yn deud ‘miwsig’ yn lle ‘cerddoriaeth, neu ‘tships’ yn lle ‘sglodion’, ond pam?

Efallai, maen nhw’n defnyddio i geiriau pawb erail yn defnyddio, iaith cyfreddin. Maen nhw’n defynddio’r geirau hawddach i gweud. Maen nhw’n dewis geiriau Saesneg fod  yn gweithio yn wella na y gair Cymraeg. Weithiau dydan nhw ddim yn gwybod i gair cymraeg a mae’n hawddach i defynyddio’r gair Saesneg tan maen nhw clywed i gair Cymraeg yn digon i newid i defnyddio’r y gair honna.

Mae’n anodd am dysgwyr i siarad fel wnes i disgrifio uwchben. Yn prif, oherwydd dyn ni ddim yn dysgu sut i adnewid rhwyng yr dwy iaith eto. Pan dw i’n siarad yn Cymraeg, weithiau dw  i ddim yn gwybod sut i gweud rhywbeth yn Cymraeg, felly wna i’r un peth yn Saesneg, bydd i’n trio gweud iddo fo yn ffordd gwahanol yn defynyddio geiriau mai dw i’n gwybod. Weithiau mewn sgwrs bydd i’n penderfynu i defnyddio gair Saesneg yn y canol yr brawdeggau ond dw i’n gorfod aros, ailgychwyn i meddwl yn Saesneg, cael y gair a wedyn ailgychwyn fy ymynedd unwaith eto i Cymraeg i gorffen y brawdeggau. Mae’n cymryd llawer o amser. Dyma pam mae’n anodd i siarad efo siaradwyr iaith cyntaf achos mae’n anodd iawn ymdopi efo dwy iaith ar yr un pryd.

Es i’r Eisteddfod Genedlaethol am y tro cyntaf ar ol dysgu Cymraeg am chwe mis. O’n i’n siarad efo’r rhywun oedd yn siarad am ‘tents’. Atebais i yn defnyddio’r ‘pabell’ mewn brawdeggau a wedyn meddan nhw ‘oh rili sori, pabell’! Oedd rhyfedd iawn, wnes i ddim eisiau diwygus siaradwyr Cymraeg, dw i eisiau siarad yn union fel nhw, ond dw i ddim yn barod eto, dw i ddim yn dwy ieithog wir.

Mae’n tipyn tebyg yr gwahaniaeth rhwng sut oedden ni’n siarad efo ffreindiau yn yr ysgol a sut efo ein nheulu. Mae’n angen i dysgu sut i siarad yn cymunded gwahanol a dysgu siarad rhai tafodiaeth (nad dim ond tafodiaeth yr Gogledd ac y De)

Dylwn i siarad mwy efo’r siaradwyr iaith cyntaf. Mae’n hawddach i siarad efo dysgwyr arall oherwydd mae’n nhw siarad yn yr un fford fel fi dydan nhw ddim gweud gormod o geiriau Saesneg!

Dw i’n dal cenfigenus o siaradwyr iaith cyntaf, ond dw i’n syweddoli bod bydd i’n erioied siarad yn fford gwahanol iddyn nhw ond dw i’n wrth fy modd i medru siarad Cymraeg!