Britain is stronger untied

If ever we wanted confirmation that the LibDems don't have the first clue about the way the European Union works, we need look no further than this story in today's Scotsman:

Scotland in EU weaker than Greece, say Lib Dems

An independent Scotland would be allocated less voting power in the European Union than Greece, according to information extracted by the Lib Dems from the European Commission.

The United Kingdom currently has 29 votes within the Council of Ministers – the same number as France, Germany and Italy. This would fall to 27 votes, based on population size, if Scotland were to become independent. Scotland itself would be allocated seven votes as an independent nation – the same number as Denmark, Slovakia, Finland, Ireland and Lithuania.

George Lyon, the Lib Dem MEP, said such a small number of votes would mean Scotland would have to rely on building “shaky alliances” with other member states to pass any motion, or block any proposal.

Scotsman, 28 December 2011

This story is just plain wrong on so many levels.

First is the idea that the LibDems had to "extract" this information from the EU Commission. The information is common knowledge, and all the details of the voting weights in the Council of the EU are here.

Second, why should it be any surprise that Greece, with a population of 11.1m people, should have a greater voting weight under the current system than Scotland, with a population of 5.2m people? Of course it should.

But third, and rather more seriously, if the LibDems had actually asked the EU Commission they would have been told that the current system of voting weights in the Council of the EU is going to be replaced with a new system of qualified majority voting (QMV) from November 2014 anyway.


When this is introduced, it means that decisions taken in the Council of the EU will need to be approved by a 55% majority of member states and that these states have at least 65% of the EU's population. 55% means at least 16 out of 28 member states, for Croatia is set to join in 2013.

So let's imagine a situation where the UK wants to either get through a proposal which it considers to be in the interests of Britain or block a proposal that it considers not to be in the interests of Britain. It will no longer be able to rely on its current veto for a whole range of policy areas (there's a table of them here) and so will have to find at least 15 other like-minded countries in order to get something through or 12 to block it.

But when Scotland and Wales become independent members of the EU, the interests of Britain—and it is right to acknowledge that there are many areas where we do share a common interest—will be represented by three member states rather than just one, so we will not need to get support from as many other countries on any issue on which we can agree. Therefore Britain as a whole will have a stronger voice in the Council of the EU when England, Scotland and we in Wales can represent ourselves directly. The same will also be true in the European Parliament, although the maths is slightly different.

All three unionist parties like to tell us that Britain is stronger united, but they couldn't be more wrong. Britain isn't stronger united; Britain is stronger untied.

Bookmark and Share

Wales, Slovenia and Independence

If we want to compare ourselves with other similar countries in Europe, Slovenia is an almost perfect example. It is virtually exactly the same size as Wales, though with just over two million people.


It even gives us a run for our money in the spectacular mountain and castle department:


And the flag of the capital city, Ljubljana, bears an uncanny resemblance to a flag we are all more familiar with:


Slovenia used to be part of Yugoslavia until it declared independence in 1991 and became a member of the United Nations in 1992. Unlike Croatia and Bosnia, it was fortunate not to suffer from more than a few days of skirmishes with the Serbian army, and didn't require any post war rebuilding. So it has become a model of how a small country can prosper as a result of becoming independent.

Like Wales, Slovenia has a rich half and a poorer half with about the same degree of difference between them. These are the GDP per head figures (on Purchasing Power Standard, to adjust for differences in the cost of living as explained at the end of this document) for both countries going back to 1997, taken from this site:

Wales         EastWestSlovenia         WestEast

As we can see, back in 1997 Wales was significantly more prosperous than Slovenia. But in the past twelve years Wales' economic growth has been fairly pathetic, while Slovenia's rate of growth has been about double that of Wales. This means that West Slovenia has now become richer than East Wales, and even poorer East Slovenia has become richer than West Wales and the Valleys.

I see this as a good example of how a small country can benefit as a result of becoming independent rather than remaining in a comfort zone of being part to a larger state. Slovenia has become more outward looking, needing to adopt a more open trading and export orientated strategy with neighbouring countries to survive ... and has done very well as a result. It is another example of what Adam Price and Ben Levinger described in The Flotilla Effect.


Now of course there are no automatic guarantees that Wales would do as well if we were independent. It would depend entirely on the policies pursued by the governments we elected. But there is a consistent pattern of small independent countries outperforming larger ones, and there's no reason to believe that Wales would be so different from Slovenia.

So if we imagine that instead of voting for a limited amount of devolution within the UK in 1997 we had voted for outright independence from the UK, then the GDP of East Wales would now be 34,600 per head if it had matched the performance of West Slovenia, and the GDP of West Wales and the Valleys would now be 23,700 per head if it had matched the performance of East Slovenia.

I wouldn't want people to think that I've cherry picked the best example in choosing Slovenia. I chose it because of how similar it is to Wales. In the Baltic States the rate of economic growth has been very much greater. Estonia (1.4m people) grew by 150%, Latvia (2.3m people) grew by 152% and Lithuania (3.2m people) grew by 143% over the same period [see this spreadsheet]. But as ex-Soviet countries they were starting from a very much lower base, and are still below the level of GDP per head for West Wales and the Valleys. Slovenia is a much more relevant example because it did not start from very far behind us, but has now overtaken us.


Those who argue against independence for Wales say that we can't afford it. These figures are an indication of how much we are losing out as a result of not being independent. The choice for Wales is either to carry on as we are, tied to a United Kingdom that is more concerned to protect the interests of South East England and its financial services sector than it is about Wales, or to put ourselves directly into the international arena. We might well go through hard times for the first few years after independence as we rebuild our economy, but in ten or twelve years we will have more than made up for it.

Update - 23:00 14 March 2012

The 2009 figures have just been published. Looking through them, the figures for 2008 have changed quite dramatically, which I think probably represents a correction largely due to the impact of the debt crisis. But the figures for earlier years have also changed slightly, which might perhaps be explained by an adjustment to the PPS formula.

These are the newly published figures for all years. The figures for 1997 are not on the latest Eurostat table, so I have kept the figure published last year:

Wales         EastWestSlovenia         WestEast

The basic picture is still the same. Slovenia is more prosperous than Wales, and the rate of growth is much faster than in Wales. The previous figures to 2008 showed a total growth about double that of Wales, but the new figures to 2009 show that the growth in Slovenia is now more like three times that of Wales.

Bookmark and Share

Nadolig Llawen i chi i gyd



Bookmark and Share

Plaid Cymru Leadership Odds

I sent an email to one of the betting comparison sites this afternoon to find out if any bookies were offering odds for the Plaid Cymru leadership race.

None of them had, but I got another email an hour or so later to say that Paddy Power had just done so. Their prices are:

Elin Jones ... 4/7
Dafydd Elis-Thomas ... 10/3
Leanne Wood ... 5/1
Simon Thomas ... 5/1

Oddschecker, 22 December 2011

Any comments?

Part of my reason for asking was that Martin Shipton had described Dafydd Elis-Thomas as "the front runner in the race to become leader of Plaid Cymru". I didn't think that was likely to be true ... but if it was, it certainly isn't any more.

Bookmark and Share

What is Independence?

In the Western Mail on Friday, Rhodri Glyn Thomas claimed that independence was "a concept that no-one fully understands". I can't say for sure whether he genuinely doesn't understand what independence is or if he just said this as a way of justifying his opposition to it ... though I suspect the second is much more likely to be true.

Independence is a very simple concept, and nobody should have any trouble understanding what it is. Here are just some examples, though I could provide many more:


Slovenia used to be part of Yugoslavia, but became independent in June 1991 and became a member state of the United Nations in May 1992. It then became a member state of the European Union in May 2004.


Estonia used to be part of the USSR, but became independent in August 1991 and became a member state of the United Nations in September 1991. It too became a member state of the European Union in May 2004.


Slovakia used to be part of Czechoslovakia, but became independent in July 1992 and became a member state of the United Nations in January 1993. And it too became a member state of the European Union in May 2004.


Montenegro used to be part of Serbia and Montenegro (and of Yugoslavia before that) but became independent in May 2006 and became a member state of the United Nations in June 2006.


South Sudan used to be part of Sudan, but became independent in July 2011 and became a member state of the United Nations five days later.


Independence is moving from the position of being a constituent part of a larger state to being able to represent our own national interests directly on the international stage in organizations such as the UN and EU. No nation can become a member of either one or both of these organizations unless they are independent, so for virtually all practical purposes this acts as the definition of what independence is.


One part of the smokescreen that Rhodri Glyn and others like to put up is that independence and interdependence are somehow mutually exclusive. That's silly. All independent countries are interdependent to a greater or lesser degree. On the positive side they can agree to trade with each other, cooperate with each other, make treaties and international agreements with each other, and sometimes pool aspects of their sovereignty with each other. On the negative side they will sometimes choose not to trade with certain countries, to impose sanctions or not to have diplomatic relations with them, or even go to war.

This is all part of the responsibility of being an independent nation. We will be able to make these decisions for ourselves to suit our national interests and our sense of what's right and wrong.

Bookmark and Share

Spluttered Cornflakes all over the Western Mail





Rhodri Glyn Thomas said:














     Western Mail, 17 September 2004
     Scotsman, 22 September 2004
     Western Mail, 12 November 2004
     Daily Post, 30 December 2010
     Daily Post, 8 September 2011







Western Mail, 13 December 2011




Bookmark and Share

Independence for Wales is a Mirage



   Dafydd Thomas-Elis is the AM for Mwyfor Deirionnydd
   and an enthusiastic supporter of independence for Wales

As I made clear in yesterday's edition of the Western Mail, I voted enthusiastically in favour of the recent change in Plaid Cymru's constitution to make it explicit that our first aim as a party is independence for Wales.

However questions are now being raised about how I could have done this only two days after giving this interview to the Daily Post, in which I was quoted as saying that independence for Wales was a "mirage" and something that I found ethically incompatible.

What I said was misunderstood by the Daily Post. I was definitely not saying that independence for Wales is something illusory: like an oasis that a thirsty man in the desert might hallucinate about and believe to be within reach, but that in fact isn't real or reachable at all.

What I actually meant was that independence for Wales is like a very powerful fighter aircraft, a potent and unstoppable force in Welsh politics.


I was totally unaware that the Daily Post had misinterpreted what I said and printed the word with a small m rather than a capital M.

And although I was quoted as saying that independence was something I found to be ethically incompatible, it should have been obvious that this was a reference to the international arms trade, and specifically to the fact that France has sold these powerful fighter aircraft to countries all over the world.

I was shocked to discover that the clear and obvious meaning of what I said has been so badly misconstrued by the media and by other members of Plaid Cymru, and have therefore issued this statement so that there can be no possible doubt about my sincerity and consistency on the matter of independence for Wales.

Bookmark and Share

Plaid Cymru fails to act

As I'm sure everyone reading this will know, the first aim of Plaid Cymru as a political party is for Wales to be independent.

For a period, the party was not quite sure whether it wanted to use the "i" word, and so decided to describe its first aim as "to promote the constitutional advancement of Wales with a view to attaining Full National Status for Wales within the European Union" instead. It was a compromise that was broadly acceptable, not least because we also stated that one of our aims was specifically "to attain membership of the United Nations". As only independent sovereign states can be members of the UN, it was a round about way of saying that we wanted Wales to have the same status as nearly all other nations in the world ... but without actually using the "i" word.

However at the party conference this year we unanimously passed a motion to change our constitution and make it explicit that our first aim was "to secure independence for Wales in Europe". This reflects the fact that in recent years we have regained some of our boldness, and are no longer afraid to talk about independence.

One person who should have spoken in the debate, but didn't, was Dafydd Elis-Thomas. Instead of arguing his position in the conference hall, he decided to ignore the party completely and go straight to the press. He gave an interview to the Daily Post in which he stated, incredibly, that independence had never been what Plaid Cymru stood for, that he was ethically opposed to it, and that it was a "mirage".

     Plaid Cymru leadership challenger says Welsh independence is a "mirage"

The only explanation for this behaviour was that he knew full well he wouldn't be able to change the minds of any of the delegates at conference; but being too vain to want to be seen on the losing side in the vote in the hall, he went public. He was making the clearest possible statement that whatever the party decided, he would not change his view.


Now everyone is fully entitled to their views, of course, but there is no place in any self-respecting political party for someone who is opposed to that party's fundamental aims ... and especially for someone who goes out of their way to speak against them. For Dafydd Elis-Thomas did not say this just once: in the days and weeks following that interview he went on to say in public that he wouldn't advocate any constitutional changes for Wales at all; and that he saw Wales' place as a region in Europe, with devolution and within the UK, rather than as an independent member of the EU in our own right.

At the same time another prominent member of the party, Rhodri Glyn Thomas, said in two television interviews that he did not and had never supported independence for Wales, even though he acknowledged that this put him at odds with the party.

Because these statements were clearly in conflict with Plaid Cymru's fundamental aims, I and other members of the party decided to make a formal complaint against these two men. I daresay that there will be some speculation or misinformation about what exactly we were trying to achieve, therefore I've decided to publish the complaint so that everyone can read it for themselves.

     Formal Complaint against Dafydd Elis-Thomas and Rhodri Glyn Thomas

We've now heard from the panel that was given responsibility for handling the matter that the complaint was not upheld, and that the party is not going to take any action against them. We think these are cowardly and shameful decisions which make the party look ridiculous. What is the point of us deciding to make it absolutely explicit in our constitution that our first aim as a party is independence, but then allow prominent members of the party to undermine that by making a series of public statements which are in direct conflict with that aim?

Put more bluntly, what on earth is the point of Plaid Cymru continuing as a political party if it refuses to take its first and most fundamental aim seriously?


Now I will be the first to admit that in detailing what has happened I am washing Plaid's dirty linen in public. Something in our party stinks, and I am making what has happened public only because those who could and should have dealt with it have refused to wash this dirty linen in private.

We did not ask the party to do anything that we thought would be problematic or difficult. Even though it is clear from our constitution that all members must agree to further the aims of the party, and that a member will be subject to disciplinary action for actions or statements in conflict with these aims, we did not ask for either man to be expelled from the party.


If the party had done this, there would have one of two outcomes: either that these men would publicly declare their support for independence, leaving us as a party that was fully united behind its aims; or that they could have quietly stood down at the next election without losing face, because no-one outside the party would have needed to know exactly why they were standing down.

But perhaps it isn't surprising that neither of them was prepared to make such a statement. If we look at the Daily Post "mirage" interview, Dafydd Elis-Thomas said:

"The priority seems to be to drive forward with greater devolution within Europe and that's always been my position."


"I am part of the European, green, leftist post nationalist alternative. I am very strongly a European regionalist. I will not change my personal convictions."

Daily Post, 8 September 2011

And Rhodri Glyn Thomas said these things about independence in two separate TV interviews:


Sharp End, 27 October 2011


"It's not a term that I’ve used during my political career, and I’m not likely to use it."

Dragon's Eye, 3 November 2011

People would not say things like this unless it was their deliberate intention to show the public that they do not and will not support the party's first aim. Nevertheless we thought we should in the first instance (at least formally, for an informal approach had been ignored) give them the opportunity to reconsider their position. But more importantly we wanted to give the party as an organization the opportunity to insist that they did so or stand down at the next election. They failed to take it.


I want to stress that there are many good, sincere people in Plaid Cymru who are absolutely unequivocal in their belief that Wales should be independent. I and the others who made the complaint are not some small clique within the party. On the contrary, in wanting independence for Wales we are part of the overwhelming majority. Remember that the amendment to the constitution was passed unanimously. But we suffer from a small clique entrenched in senior positions in the party who have become arrogant enough to believe that party rules don't apply to them and to think that they can ignore the rest of the party with impunity.

If I thought I was in a minority, then I would leave the party. If all I wanted for Wales was greater devolution in maybe a federal UK, then I would join a party that has this as one of its aims. But I want Wales to be independent. So even though certain people in the party might wish it, I'm not going to leave Plaid Cymru in a huff or be forced out of the party. I'm simply going to stand up for what the party says it believes in. I know others will stand with me.


So what is the point of making what has happened public?

There are many people at all levels of the party who have said they welcomed a formal complaint as an opportunity for the party to show some backbone and stand up for what it believes in. I and others have had many, many phone calls and emails over the past few weeks from people supporting what we have done and saying they were glad that someone was at last making a stand.

So it's sad and shameful that the party hierarchy has chosen to put fudge and political expediency before our principles as a party, and this must now be changed. There are two things that can be done to change it.

What members of Plaid Cymru can do

Our strength as a party does not come down from the top of the party, but grows up from the bottom. The strength of the party is each and every individual member who is active in the party and slogs their guts out giving their time, effort and money to the party. No councillor, AM, MP or MEP would get elected if it wasn't for this hard work. Why on earth should any of us waste that time and effort getting someone elected who doesn't agree with the fundamental aims of the party?

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not asking anyone to stop working for the party. But I am asking you to exercise your rights as members to make sure that the candidates you work to elect are chosen only from those who support the party's aims. If you, at branch and constituency level, kick up enough fuss you will be able to force anti-Plaid AMs like Dafydd Elis-Thomas and Rhodri Glyn Thomas out and make sure that better candidates are selected in their place.

I would also appeal to those who support independence for Wales but who have avoided or left Plaid Cymru because of our previous ambivalence towards independence to consider joining or rejoining the party. Because of what is happening in Scotland, the issue of independence will be at the centre of political debate for the next few years, so there can be no better time to join us in working for our own country's independence. We are currently having a membership drive, but I don't want anyone who joins to be under any false illusion about what our aims are, so please read the constitution first. I would rather have another 500 people who are prepared to wholeheartedly commit themselves to what the party says it stands for than 1,000 who join without thinking it through.

Finally, use your influence and votes as party members wisely. Make sure you elect the right people as branch officers, conference delegates and representatives on National Council, and make sure that they in turn are answerable to you for the way they vote on your behalf. In this way, we can clear out the rotten wood.

Over the last few months we have been conducting a root and branch review, and in a matter of weeks Eurfyl ap Gwilym will publish a report on how the party should move forward. I fully expect that he will say in no uncertain terms that it is time for Plaid and its leadership team to articulate our vision for an independent Wales or move out of the way. To their credit some of them know that; but others will need to be pushed, and we as members will have to do the pushing. It goes without saying that those who have spoken out against independence, or those who think that arguing the case for independence is a confusing distraction from what really matters are completely unsuited to lead Plaid Cymru at what our new Chief Executive has rightly described as a critical juncture in the party's history.

What others can do

Those who are not in the party can do their part too. We need our journalists in Wales to put AMs like these on the spot; to not be afraid to ask probing questions about what our AMs stand for; to refuse to accept glib or evasive answers and weasel words. Those who put forward their own views rather than representing what the party stands for should be made to squirm. A few cringe-inducing interviews with DET or RhGT will be quite enough for the Plaid Cymru leadership to ensure they don't appear on air or in the press next time.

And the same goes for politicians from other parties. Taunt and make fun of those who were elected as Plaid Cymru candidates but hold views that are in conflict with the aims of the party. They are freeloaders; people who are using their elected position to further their own personal agenda rather than the aims of the party they stood for. They deserve all the embarrassment and ridicule they get.

And yes, while you do that you can (and I'm sure you will) taunt the rest of us in Plaid Cymru for allowing such a situation to develop and doing nothing to deal with it. We deserve it ... but if what I've written in this post achieves its purpose, you will not be able to do it for very much longer.

Michael Haggett

Bookmark and Share

Labour: absolutely wrong, absolutely immoral




     Welsh civil servants pay crisis
     Union condemns court 'pay divide'







Welsh government 'could take over' public sector pay





BBC, 30 November 2011


Bookmark and Share

Build for Scotland

To judge from what's quoted in the media, anyone would think that today's announcement of £1.4bn for the 21st Century Schools programme was something positive. In reality it's rather pathetic. What was to be £4bn of work has been more than halved in scope, and the money is now to be stretched over seven years instead of three. £200m a year isn't much, especially when only half of it is now going to come from the Welsh Government.

This, and indeed other essential infrastructure investment, could have been much greater if the Labour government was more ambitious and imaginative. To see what a more enterprising government can do we just need to look to Scotland, where the SNP are this week going to announce an infrastructure investment programme of £60bn.

SNP’s £60bn plan to boost the economy

Ministers will this week unveil plans to commit up to £60 billion to finance dozens of infrastructure projects to help prevent Scotland from tipping back into recession.

Amid fresh warnings that the UK is heading for its worst peacetime economic downturn since the end of the 19th century, the Scottish Government will announce plans to fund more than 80 building projects as part of a 15-year plan. Expected funding of up to £4bn a year will come from public funds, but also from a mix of new loans and investment from banks and private lenders.

Ministers are also planning to use new powers in the Scotland Bill going through the UK parliament to enable them to borrow up to £2bn from the UK Treasury’s coffers and have asked that the limit be increased so they can borrow up to £5.6bn. In the meantime, they plan to raise the rest for their capital projects programme through “innovative” financing methods.

Ministers insist the extra cash will not create a re-run of the costly high-interest loans created by old PFI deals in Scotland, which have left the taxpayer paying back far more than the capital cost for new public buildings.

The Scotsman, 4 December 2011

So what might these "innovative financing methods" be? At the bottom of the article we can see that this will be a "non-profit distributing model". Yes, it sounds exactly like the Build for Wales model that Plaid Cymru have been proposing. I'm only surprised they didn't put a bright yellow poppy on it and call it Build for Scotland.


It puts the Labour government in Wales to shame. I'm left with the feeling that any attempt at doing something positive has been put to one side simply in order for Labour to repeat, ad nauseam, that it's all the fault of the Tory cuts. Of course we've been kicked in the stomach by the Tory and LibDem cuts, but a bolder Welsh government would get up off the floor and find a way round the constraints ... just as they have in Scotland.

Bookmark and Share

Gemau Glew



Bookmark and Share

The Spanish General Election




The Catalan Perspective



These are the results for Catalunya:


Ara, 20 November 2011



The Basque Perspective





Gara, 20 November 2011




Bookmark and Share

Only 19% in the UK call themselves British






Scotsman, 20 November 2011

These are the figures from the YouGov poll:


English ... 63%
Scottish ... 8%
Welsh ... 5%
Irish ... 1%
British ... 19%
European ... 2%
Something else ... 2%

Attitudes to Europe, YouGov, 18 November 2011



Bookmark and Share

Long Stay


Bookmark and Share

Devolving the Police





Bookmark and Share

Looking forward to the Spanish election







PP ... 30.3% (was 26.5%)
Amaiur ...18.0% (was 9%)


PP ... 21.0% (was 19.1%)
Amaiur ... 19.1% (was 8.9%)


Amaiur ... 36.3% (was 17.9%)
PP ... 15.0% (was 14.6%)


Amaiur ... 24.5% (was 10.8%)
PP ... 20.4% (was 18.7%)

Estudio Preelectoral, Noviembre 2011



Bookmark and Share

We know how it feels



Bookmark and Share




Bookmark and Share

An own goal





Bookmark and Share

How well does England understand devolution?


In Scotland

Scottish Parliament with existing powers ... 29%
Full independence for Scotland ... 28%

In England

Scottish Parliament with existing powers ... 40%
Full independence for Scotland ... 24%

TNS-BMRB, 6 November 2011



In Wales

Scottish Parliament with existing powers ... 33%
Full independence for Scotland ... 15%





Bookmark and Share

Devolving National Insurance and VAT to Wales












Bookmark and Share

The Clown Prince of Comedy Maths

















Bookmark and Share

Rhodri Glyn Thomas ... another anti-Plaid AM







2.1 To secure independence for Wales in Europe.








Bookmark and Share

Wales takes the biggest hit

With a hat tip to Dewi at Slugger O'Toole, there was a nice graphic in the Guardian this week showing UK public expenditure for 2010/11 compared with 2009/10, adjusted for inflation. Click the image to open the article.


As a whole, UK public spending is virtually unchanged, going up by only 0.34%. There's a lot of interesting stuff to digest at leisure, but in the bottom right hand quarter are the devolved expenditures for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I've zoomed in on these and shown them at the same scale for comparison:



As we can see, Scotland has received a 2.95% increase in expenditure in real terms, getting a better deal than the UK as a whole; Northern Ireland has received 2.01% less in real terms; but Wales has suffered a reduction of 3.92% in real terms.

Of course the settlements reflect different devolved responsibilities in the three administrations, but we can make these two points: first, that these responsibilities have not changed between 2009/10 and 2010/11; and second, that because overall UK spending is almost exactly the same it means that the cost of things devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland but not devolved to Wales would have very little effect on the overall Welsh figure. And even if we focus on the most obvious difference, we can see that Westminster's spending on police and crime was reduced by 3.2%, which is only very slightly less than the Welsh reduction.

So from these figures it's clear that Wales has had to take a much more severe cut in public expenditure than any other part of the UK.

Bookmark and Share

20% margin in favour of Catalan independence

It is very encouraging to see the support for independence in these pictures from Catalunya on BlogMenai, and in particular this newspaper headline:


If anyone needs a translation, it says that 45.4% would vote for independence and 24.7% would vote no, a bigger margin than in the last poll.

The poll in question is the Baròmetre d’Opinió Política, an official poll conducted every three months based on a large sample of 2,500 people. It can be downloaded here, but this is a rough translation of what another Catalan paper said about it:

Support for Catalan independence grows by more than two points, according to CEO

45.4% of those surveyed said they would vote 'yes' in a referendum on independence, compared to 24.7% who would vote 'no' and 23.8% who would not vote. The same survey shows that support for the Economic Agreement remains at 75%.

Support for the independence of Catalunya has increased 2.5 points in three months, according to the third wave of the Centre for Opinion Studies (CEO) to be presented Wednesday. Thus, 45.4% of respondents say they would vote yes to becoming an independent state in a referendum on self-determination (the wave in June was 42.9%), while those rejecting independence fell by 3.5 points to 24.7% of respondents (28.2% in June). In a hypothetical referendum, discounting those who would abstain (23.8%), the percentage voting yes would be more than 60%. Similarly, in a three-way choice, independence is the preferred option of 28.2% of Catalans (a year ago it was at 25.2%), and is in a technical tie with those wanting Catalunya to be a state within a Federal Spain (30.4%) and an autonomous region (30.3%).

Those who would vote yes in a referendum, moreover, are highest in CiU (56.4% versus 18.3%), ICV-EUiA (48.1% versus 18.7%), ERC (94.5%) and SI (95.1%), with many in PSC (27.6% with 40.4% opposed) leaving PP (only 8%). The reasons given for independence are mainly pragmatic (32.2% want to obtain economic self-management and 13.7% to "improve Catalonia" while only 11.7% said "a feeling of identity"), while Spanish national identity was uppermost for those who oppose independence (35.5% said no to preserve the "unity of Spain", 13.9% for the "feeling of identity", while 13.2% simply said it was "impossible").

The same wave of CEO's barometer of opinion indicates that support for the Economic Agreement remains at 75%. Voters in the vast majority of the parties favour this, namely CiU (84.1% support), ICV-EUiA (82.8%), ERC (93.7%), SI (100%) and the PSC (69.8%) who prefer a "federal fiscal pact." 39.2% of the electors of the PP also wanted that, as did 15.1% of Ciutadans.

Diari Ara, 25 October 2011 | Google Translate

To explain some of that, CiU currently form the Catalan government. They are a centre-right party that has traditionally been nationalist but not in favour of independence; however that is now clearly changing with many of their leaders voting for independence in the unofficial referendums. However, rather than adopting an official position in favour of independence, they are pressing for an "Economic Agreement" with Spain which would give them the same status as the four Basque provinces: namely that they set and collect all their own taxes and only give Madrid an agreed percentage for those services provided centrally. This full fiscal autonomy is probably the best model for the DevoMax option in Scotland.

The next biggest party is the Partit dels Socialistes de Catalunya, who are—rather like Labour here—definitely a Unionist party. The surprise is that 27.6% of their voters want independence, with only 40.4% against. Their "federal fiscal pact" calls for greater fiscal autonomy, but not to the extent currently enjoyed in Euskadi.

The Partit Popular are equivalent to the Tories, and are about as popular in Catalunya as the Tories are in Scotland. So even though they're solidly opposed to independence it wouldn't really make a lot of difference in any referendum. However there is a general election due in Spain next month, and they look fairly certain to win it.

ICV-EUiA are best described a "ecosocialists" with about 7% support. ERC—who with Plaid Cymru and the SNP are part of the EFA group in the European Parliament—have always wanted independence, and SI was set up specifically to call for independence in the elections in 2010, so their 95% figures are to be expected.


What happens next in Catalunya will depend on the Spanish general election next month. If the PP fail to get an overall majority, the CiU will offer them support at the price of this new Economic Agreement. But if the PP don't need support (or can get it elsewhere) getting a similar arrangement to that enjoyed by the Basque provinces seems unlikely. Spain is in so much economic trouble that it needs all the money it can get from Catalunya ... and it is getting a great deal of money from them. The headline below says that the amount redistributed to poorer regions in Spain is €2,256 per person per year, a total of €16.43bn in 2009.


If Spain does nothing to redress this disproportionate outflow of tax from Catalunya the only option left for the Catalans will be independence. So it's a win-win situation. If CiU hold the balance of power in Madrid, Catalunya will get full fiscal autonomy. But if they don't get it, the margin in favour of independence will just keep growing.

With their own supporters in favour of independence by a margin of more than three to one, CiU should now be able to shift its policy without any risk of splitting the party (all politicians put their own power base first). So there is every likelihood that the next Catalan Parliament will have a majority elected on an pro-independence mandate after the 2014 election.

Bookmark and Share