The Conservatives had long flirted with the idea of a purely English parliament and mentioned it in their election manifesto, since attempts to create English regional assemblies had led nowhere with the crushing defeat of such an idea in the North-East. There had now been a reduction in Scottish representation at Westminster, with the prospect of a similar reduction in Welsh seats in the future. Unionists complained how both nations were mathematically over-represented at West minster.
There were other issues raised here too. There was the question of the future of the Welsh Office, a weak department whose abolition had been called for by the House of Lords Constitution Committee as long ago as There was also the issue of the relationship of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to the European Union, which had caused debate when agriculture e.
There was a modest relationship of the Scottish and Welsh assemblies to Brussels but it was distinctly less robust than that of, say, the German lander or the different linguistic segments of bipolar Belgium.
By there was widespread agreement that it was seriously inadequate. It was fiercely criticised both by a House of Lords Select Committee including such luminaries as the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson and by the commission headed by the economist Gerald Holtham which was set up by the Welsh Assembly to consider funding arrangements for the Welsh government. The Barnett formula had turned into "a Barnett squeeze". Barnett was based on an economic convergence of England, Scotland and Wales.
This was certainly not happening, especially for Wales whose GDP fell remorselessly below to around 15 per cent that of England. Nor was Barnett based on evident need, on such factors as relative health or economic deprivation, the principle adopted for the allocation of funding in different parts of England for local government finance.
It was an unfair, inadequate system, and yet it aroused English resentment especially in the north-east of England at the higher level of public expenditure in Scotland. The main thrust of its proposals was for the Scottish Parliament to develop its tax powers — powers granted in principle in but not hitherto used.
It called for a Scottish rate of income tax to be set, together with greater powers over the use of taxes levied in Scotland generally. The Holtham Commission had called for very similar powers to be given to the Welsh government. Further it had set out a clear method for identifying Welsh taxes and Welsh needs.
The Coalition government, like its Labour predecessor, was highly reluctant to act here, since abolishing Barnett would lead to a cut in public expenditure in Scotland and would be therefore politically highly unpopular.
The government spuriously cited the large national debt as a reason for inaction, even though in fact a reform of Barnett would merely mean a redistribution between the different parts of the United Kingdom, not the creation of new sources of funding. Still, the inadequacy of Barnett, and its dangers for Wales particularly, was plain for all to see. New rounds of serious public sector cuts by George Osborne, the Conservative Chancellor, made the issue all the more alarming, with the high proportion of the working population in Wales in public administration no less than First, the powers of the Welsh Assembly have now been decisively revised.
The Welsh referendum of March showed a clear majority But the result was conclusive. An ICM opinion poll just before the result was declared found that the most popular option for Welsh voters was an assembly with law-making powers and some taxing powers, a view endorsed by 35 per cent of those polled.
The outcome was seen as a clear stride towards greater authority for the Assembly, now manifestly here to stay despite the narrow majority back in and, perhaps, a greater political maturity amongst the Welsh as a people. The Conservative Secretary of State, whose party had strongly resisted devolution back in and in , called it "a good day for Wales". An imbalance in the devolution settlement had been righted. At the same time, the powers of the Welsh Assembly remained still significantly fewer than its counterpart in Scotland, and pressure to go further, especially on financial powers and particularly taxation, was to continue.
It was part of the package worked out between the Conservative and Liberal Democrats through the so-called "coalition agreement". Wales was seriously affected. In provisions swept through the Commons under the guillotine and discussed only in the Lords, partly late at night, Welsh representation at Westminster was cut by a quarter, from 40 to In January the Welsh boundary commission published highly controversial draft plans for the redrawing of Welsh parliamentary constituencies, much the greatest such change since Two constituencies proposed, Gwynedd and South Powys, would cover more than 1, square miles, a challenge indeed for their future representatives.
A straggling hybrid like "a North Wales Coast" constituency, extending from Conwy to Abergele, would come into being. In the south Wales valleys, geographical and community links, along with local government boundaries, would be overridden in the interests of mathematical equality. The impact on Wales would be more severe than for any other part of the United Kingdom and would manifestly diminish its political authority.
The great era of Welsh parliamentary achievement at Westminster, a motor of national self-expression over a hundred years from the age of Lloyd George to that of Nye Bevan and Neil Kinnock and vital in the modern advance of Welsh national identity, would seem to be coming to an ignominious end.
Debate on Welsh issues would henceforth be voiced largely in the Welsh Assembly, not the parliament at Westminster, even though major powers would still rest with the British parliament, especially on the economy and the social services as the swing to Labour in the Assembly elections, very much reflective of these issues, was to show.
But Wales would not remain disregarded. As so often in the past, as over a Secretary of State in and a Welsh Assembly in , events in Scotland would determine the course in Wales.
The Scotland Bill began its progress through the Commons and then the Lords in the summer and autumn of Significantly, it went through the Commons with all-party support, and much the same happened in the Lords on second reading, with only a few die-hard Scottish anti-devolution Conservatives like Lords Forsyth and Laing voicing objections.
In effect, the bill largely enacted the proposals of the Calman Commission. Performance Evaluations: Much analysis of elections points to the importance of performance and policy delivery, arguing that judgements on the overall competence of the rival parties are the most important factor shaping election voting.
Performance considerations have sometimes been found to be important in shaping referendum voting, and could certainly be expected to shape voting in the Welsh referendum. Voters were being asked to give the National Assembly enhanced powers; their willingness to do this might well be affected by how well they thought it had done with the powers it already possessed. But giving more powers to politicians in Cardiff meant, to some extent, taking those powers away from Westminster. So judgements about the recent performance of the UK government might also be relevant.
As Figure 1 shows, those with overall positive evaluations of the performance of the Assembly government were much more likely to vote Yes in the referendum than those with negative evaluations. But it is also clear that evaluations of the UK government were relevant. Influence of the Campaign: Studies of referendums around the world have often shown big changes in voting intentions during the campaign period leading up to the vote.
As the voters are made more familiar with the issues at stake in a referendum, they often change their initial views. This particularly tends to happen in places such as some states in the USA where campaigns are able to spend substantial amounts of money prior to the referendum.
In the UK, referendum spending is tightly controlled. And, as we saw earlier, the lacklustre campaign in Wales in struggled to connect to most voters. So it is no surprise that little changed during the campaign period beyond the number of undecided voters slowly falling.
The Yes campaign had a clear lead in all opinion polls published during and early And as we see from Figure 2, nothing happened during the final four weeks of campaigning to change that. Identity Politics: As mentioned earlier, the devolution referendum had shown Wales split down the middle on devolution. A major factor behind those divisions was national identity.
Those with a more Welsh identity were much more likely to have supported devolution than those with a British identity. Although subsequent research had shown rapidly declining opposition to devolution among British identifiers, it was far from clear that such people would be willing to go as far as supporting even stronger devolution for Wales.
And as Figure 3 shows, some differences did remain, with more strongly Welsh identifiers being clearly more likely to vote Yes. Two other differences which were seen in the referendum persisted in In , men had been several percentage points more likely to vote Yes than women; this was still the case in And as Figure 4 shows, older voters remain much the most reluctant to support greater devolution — although even among them, a narrow majority of those voting chose to vote Yes.
Views on the Issue : Last, but certainly not least, how people vote in a referendum can depend on what they actually think about the issue on the ballot. Referendums sometimes concern an issue on which many people have clear and deeply-held views, although often this is not the case. Ostensibly there are no implications: the assembly would continue to exist, operating under the same powers and structures as now.
But in reality, things could surely not remain untouched. A No vote - which would go against the leadership of all the parties in Cardiff Bay - would deal a huge blow to the status of the assembly. The emerging consensus among Wales' political elite in recent years has regarded devolution as a developing process, with steadily growing - though not fervent - public support.
A No vote would shatter this consensus, and indicate that it had been based on fundamentally flawed assumptions. The very existence of the assembly would be questioned, and there would likely be calls for a referendum on its abolition. Certainly, any further requests made to Westminster by the assembly for law-making powers under the current Legislative Competence Order LCO system would be viewed with great scepticism.
Many people have criticised the Welsh referendum as being unduly technical - for concerning a matter of detail rather than one of fundamental principle. The Assembly already has devolved responsibility over 20 areas including health, environment, local government, housing and education.
But to pass primary legislation in these areas it must ask for permission from Westminster each time. Sometimes this 'signing off' process can take up to three years. If the people of Wales vote 'yes,' the number of areas the Assembly can make laws on will not be increased — but the process of law-making will change so it's more streamlined.
What's done with the extra powers will also be determined by whatever Welsh Assembly Government comes into power in May's Assembly elections. Westminster continues to lead in areas such as tax, defence, foreign affairs, criminal justice, and welfare benefits. However, the referendum is not to make these areas come under devolved legislation — they would stay under the remit of Westminster.
More referendums would be required for these areas to become devolved. Therefore, even if the referendum is passed it would not mean the Assembly has tax-rising powers — unlike in Scotland. There would be more way to go before Wales became fully devolved — but this referendum would take the nation one step closer. Download this report on the Assembly Measures approved here. Will the number of Assembly members increase if it is passed? This is one of the biggest myths of the referendum.
The number of Assembly members will remain at How long does the process of making laws take by going through Westminster? Sometimes up to three or four years — where as passing legislation in general takes up to a year. The National Assembly was created following the referendum which took place on 18 September Of the This was a simple campaign on whether Welsh citizens wanted an Assembly or not — and was passed after a very tight vote.
Since , the Assembly has said the public are generally more in favour of devolution than this minor majority vote suggests — but they will need hard votes in favour of further devolved powers on Thursday for this assumption to ring true.
In , For that reason, a particularly targeted 'yes' campaign has been taking place in the city since January. What's changed this time round — how will people in Cardiff vote? This time all the political parties have backed the 'yes' campaign — with politicians such as Nick Bourne — leader of the Welsh Conservatives — who was behind the 'no' vote last time round changing his allegiance.
Otherwise, there is still considerable confusion among the public over what the referendum is actually about.
0コメント