Welsh Independence - Wexit

[The Don]

OK, maybe this question isn't very important, but supposing this were to happen, what would Prince Charles' title be if Wales left the U.K.?

I'm sure that he could continue to be referred to as the Prince of Wales. AFAIK there doesn't have to be a specific link to a title and a geographic location.

Otherwise he would likely be Prince Charles, Duke of Cornwall.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<snip> for off topic.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I support the idea of a Europe of the regions - central government on major policy, otherwise all devolved to smaller, more cohesive units. In my book, that's a win-win, as Europeans would in most instances see local flavor benefit more rather than less as Europe unites, preserving local identity, with less fear of being excessively homogenized.

OTOH, Spain, for example, hates the idea, as would France, both having breakaway regions and an historic obessesion with the dominant culture. Tough.

In fact, I support a WORLD confederation of semi-independent states. But I expect that to take a few centuries to implement.

Hans

 

[catsmate]

OK, maybe this question isn't very important, but supposing this were to happen, what would Prince Charles' title be if Wales left the U.K.?

He'd retain the title of Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay (he's not technically Prince of Wales in Scotland).

Edited by zooterkin: 

<snip> for off topic.

 

[catsmate]

In fact, I support a WORLD confederation of semi-independent states. But I expect that to take a few centuries to implement.

Hans

Ah, the One State/Thousand State hybrid. A good finishing point, with the Ten State as an intermediate.

 

[Rolfe]

In fact, I support a WORLD confederation of semi-independent states. But I expect that to take a few centuries to implement.

Indeed. I remember some years ago having an argument with Soapy Sam who said two things I thought were plain wrong. One was that the direction of travel is to states uniting, not to states breaking up. That's plainly wrong. At the turn of the 20th century there were about 50 independent states, whereas there are now about 200. So factually the direction of travel is to smaller states. We only have to look at Europe to see that.

The other was that he favoured "one world government" and that any fracturing of a state was a step away from that. I couldn't get my head around that.

I can see two ways to "one world government", and the way that's promoted by the idea that states should get larger and larger (presumably by conquest or subsuming their neighbours) until there's only one of them absolutely horrifies me. It sounds like perpetual warfare getting worse and worse as larger states clash as to who should subsume whom, until you have only two superpowers and then what happens? Sounds like an absolute dystopia.

The other way is for states which see no threat of force from their neighbours coming together to pool sovereignty at national level, so that in the end the higher tiers of government mainly relating to global trade, relationships between states and possibly currency are dealt with by the top-level governing body at a global level. Leaving the individual states to look after their own local affairs within this framework. I don't want to have to send a docket to Beijing if the street light outside my window is malfunctioning.

The fact is that the latter route to one world government, no matter how likely or unlikely you think it might be to succeed, is the only one that doesn't involve a series of escalating wars. And larger states breaking up into smaller ones isn't simply no impediment to the process, it positively facilitates it. Large superpower states are the enemy of a world where states that don't threaten each other are co-operating amicably. For the one-world government fans, you should be celebrating occasions where large, unweildy states which try to "punch above their weight" and in which significant groups of people feel disenfranchised break up into smaller, more peaceful units. Not decrying this process with cries of "but you're taking me further from one world government!" Nonsense. A benign form of one world government is brought closer by the formation of smaller states, not further away.

 

[ahhell]

What's wrong with greater federalism? Anyone considering treating the Welsh like the Scots? Give them their own parliment? Same for the English?

 

[The Don]

What's wrong with greater federalism? Anyone considering treating the Welsh like the Scots? Give them their own parliment? Same for the English?

The Welsh have our own assembly (parliament). As it states in the OP, in the event that Plaid Cymru are successful in the assembly elections they promise an independence vote in the next 5 years.

 

[Rolfe]

What's wrong with greater federalism? Anyone considering treating the Welsh like the Scots? Give them their own parliment? Same for the English?

As The Don pointed out, Wales got its own parliament at the same time as Scotland did. England sees Westminster as its own parliament, that's the place where the power actually lies, and generally doesn't want what it sees as a local talking-shop to placate the natives.

The problems are disparity of size, and disrespect. No federation can work where one unit has 85% of the population. If it's one-man-one-vote then the smaller units have no chance. If it's one unit one vote, the large unit is outraged if any of its desires are thwarted by a smaller unit.

The respect thing is crucial. The devolved parliaments weren't set up to give the "colonies" any meaningful power, they were set up to placate people calling for meaningful power. So long as the Scottish parliament was run by unionists who would always do what Westminster told them to do, that was fine. Once the independence-suporting party took over, Westminster and the unionist parties have done nothing but try to undermine and defeat it. They don't want to see us running our own affairs in any meaningful sense and if we try, they'll move to restrict our powers. We are treated with disdain and hostility by Westminster and they certainly won't be offering any further powers.

Having said that, every time it looks as if Scotland might be showing a majority for independence, they promise us federalism. Don't vote for independence, vote No and you'll be a federal state within the year. Look how that turned out. It's like Lucy holding the ball for Charlie Brown to kick, and she always pulls it away.

Federalism only works if no one unit is dominant, and if the various units have respect for each other. Never going to happen in Britain. And why should we even settle for that? We've been robbed blind and then told we were beggars for hundreds of years, why would we want to continue in an abusive relationship like that once we realised the truth?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Indeed. I remember some years ago having an argument with Soapy Sam who said two things I thought were plain wrong. One was that the direction of travel is to states uniting, not to states breaking up. That's plainly wrong. At the turn of the 20th century there were about 50 independent states, whereas there are now about 200. So factually the direction of travel is to smaller states. We only have to look at Europe to see that.

The other was that he favoured "one world government" and that any fracturing of a state was a step away from that. I couldn't get my head around that.

I can see two ways to "one world government", and the way that's promoted by the idea that states should get larger and larger (presumably by conquest or subsuming their neighbours) until there's only one of them absolutely horrifies me. It sounds like perpetual warfare getting worse and worse as larger states clash as to who should subsume whom, until you have only two superpowers and then what happens? Sounds like an absolute dystopia.

The other way is for states which see no threat of force from their neighbours coming together to pool sovereignty at national level, so that in the end the higher tiers of government mainly relating to global trade, relationships between states and possibly currency are dealt with by the top-level governing body at a global level. Leaving the individual states to look after their own local affairs within this framework. I don't want to have to send a docket to Beijing if the street light outside my window is malfunctioning.

The fact is that the latter route to one world government, no matter how likely or unlikely you think it might be to succeed, is the only one that doesn't involve a series of escalating wars. And larger states breaking up into smaller ones isn't simply no impediment to the process, it positively facilitates it. Large superpower states are the enemy of a world where states that don't threaten each other are co-operating amicably. For the one-world government fans, you should be celebrating occasions where large, unweildy states which try to "punch above their weight" and in which significant groups of people feel disenfranchised break up into smaller, more peaceful units. Not decrying this process with cries of "but you're taking me further from one world government!" Nonsense. A benign form of one world government is brought closer by the formation of smaller states, not further away.

We are in agreement. The funny thing is that the federation needs not reduce the sovereignty of individual states. The big threat is that a world federal government must not grow into a complex bureaucratic mastodont as the EU has had a sorry tendency to to. It will have to be limited to maintaining and enforcing a federal constitution.

But, .. Rolfe, neither of us will even see the beginning of this. My only optimism is that if it can start and get some traction, it might be a self-supporting trend. The EU could be that starting place, but it would need a lot of cooler heads than there are at present. Structurally, the USA also has some good things, but their election system is ... batcrap.

Hans

 

[ahhell]

Structurally, the USA also has some good things, but their election system is ... batcrap.

Hans

The problem is, our primary system screws things up. The other issue is that nobody is willing to let the other states do their own thing. Our civics education is also crap and almost nobody realizes the states and feds actually do have a system of shared sovereignty.

 

[Rolfe]

But, .. Rolfe, neither of us will even see the beginning of this. My only optimism is that if it can start and get some traction, it might be a self-supporting trend. The EU could be that starting place, but it would need a lot of cooler heads than there are at present. Structurally, the USA also has some good things, but their election system is ... batcrap.

I don't think we'll see it, but I don't really care, it's not a big wish-list thing for me. I just get fed up with people saying, no Scotland isn't allowed to be independent because that would interfere with my eventual desire for One World Government.

One, not it won't, why should it, and two, so we should put up with being shoved around by a colonial occupying power because you have a dream for the 25th century?

 

[welshdean]

.... and back to the Welsh.
My worry about independence is trade. Wales is now primarily in the service sector. The facts of the matter are; there are no commercially viable coal seams left (who wants that smelly stuff anyway). The Steelworks are in disrepair and British made steel is uncompetitive. Our majestic docks were leveled to make way for Starbucks and Nando's and in short we have nothing left but Call Centres, Tourism, and Phone shops.
It's simply too late for Wales to prosper as an independent state.

Does anyone know the going exchange rate for Love Spoons and a barrell of oil?


On a phone, fat fingers and crappy eyesight. Sorry for typos and/Orr auto translates...




ETA: I left Wales 20 years ago, I'm afraid my opinions are moot.

 

[Darat]

.... and back to the Welsh.
My worry about independence is trade. Wales is now primarily in the service sector. The facts of the matter are; there are no commercially viable coal seams left (who wants that smelly stuff anyway). The Steelworks are in disrepair and British made steel is uncompetitive. Our majestic docks were leveled to make way for Starbucks and Nando's and in short we have nothing left but Call Centres, Tourism, and Phone shops.
It's simply too late for Wales to prosper as an independent state.

Does anyone know the going exchange rate for Love Spoons and a barrell of oil?
On a phone, fat fingers and crappy eyesight. Sorry for typos and/Orr auto translates...




ETA: I left Wales 20 years ago, I'm afraid my opinions are moot.

You are being a tad negative - there are also Welsh Cakes!

 

[Rolfe]

My own view is that no country with even modest resources which became independent ever wanted to go back. Even countries that are quite deprived mostly seem to prefer the opportunity to control their own resources than having someone else control them (and usually taking a big fat cut off the top).

I've listened to people in Ecuador railing against their govermnent saying that they've been a "developing" country for the past 100 years and with their resources why on earth aren't they developed yet, and then it gets on to politician corruption and so on, but if you suggested they'd be better off if they were ruled by Spain again, or indeed if they had never achieved independence from Spain, they'd laugh in your face.

The reason Wales is light on serious industry is precisely because it has been administered as a poor province of England for the past umpteen centuries. It isn't going to get any better, in fact given what's in Westminster it's going to get worse. You can sit around hoping Westminster will give you a break, or that somehow they'll actually allow Wales to develop in such a way that it prospers more within the union, or you can start thinking about and taking steps to repatriate control of your resources and your destiny and act like grown-ups.

I know which I'd do. 100% of the experience of countries that have gone before you says go for it. You get prosperity, happiness and self-esteem like nothing you had while you were being run as a colony. I do not believe that the Welsh are uniquely incapable of managing their own affairs, alone out of almost all the countries in the world. (Of course they say the same about Scotlsnd, Anybody notice a pattern here? They said the same about absolutely every single British colony before its independence.)

 

[Aber]

The reason Wales is light on serious industry is precisely because it has been administered as a poor province of England for the past umpteen centuries. It isn't going to get any better, in fact given what's in Westminster it's going to get worse.

Just no; you have little understanding of Wales and its history.

 

[Aber]

It's simply too late for Wales to prosper as an independent state.

It could, but the biggest issues are a long and porous border with England, and a large public sector.

It could go down the Irish low tax route, but would not be able to support current public spending; tax increases would see businesses move across the border.

 

[dudalb]

Just no; you have little understanding of Wales and its history.

It might be the old Scots vs Welsh thing again. The two have had a rivalry for some time.
And I think Rolfe want the UK to break up;he will deny it, of course, but I think he is driven by a general dislike of the English.

 

[The Don]

It might be the old Scots vs Welsh thing again. The two have had a rivalry for some time.
And I think Rolfe want the UK to break up;he will deny it, of course, but I think he is driven by a general dislike of the English.

Rolfe is a she.

 

[Rolfe]

And I don't dislike English people at all. I lived there for 25 years. It's possible to want your own country to be independent without disliking anyone, you know, although there seems to be a theme in parts of the English press that independence does mean hating the other which is quite sad really.

 

[RolandRat]

And I don't dislike English people at all. I lived there for 25 years. It's possible to want your own country to be independent without disliking anyone, you know, although there seems to be a theme in parts of the English press that independence does mean hating the other which is quite sad really.

Some of your comments do give a vibe of English dislike. I do agree, the tabloid press do like to equate independence with hatred. It's click bait garbage though. Just a shame we have enough people who buy into it.