Over 40% of Wales are "anti-Welsh"?

One of those occasions when you almost feel embarrassed for a senior politician:

A SENIOR Welsh Labour politician has expressed serious concern after a leaflet advocating a No vote in next year’s referendum on more powers for the National Assembly was delivered with Conservative Party literature.

John Griffiths, Counsel General to the Assembly Government and AM for Newport East, said: "This is very disturbing and confirms the split that exists in the Welsh Conservative Party."

*Coughs and clears throat*:

The No leaflet is published by True Wales, the group set up to campaign against more powers for the Assembly.

True Wales’ main spokeswoman is Rachel Banner, a member of Torfaen Labour Party.

Riiight.

"Since the Conservatives took up their seats at the Assembly in 1999, they have tried to get away from their old image as anti-Welsh, to portray themselves as a pro-devolution and pro-Wales party. The fact that Conservatives in Newport have been delivering leaflets of the No campaign together with their own material shows that [Welsh Conservative Assembly leader] Nick Bourne has a problem."

Implying that to vote "No" to next year's campaign is "anti-Welsh"?
That to be "anti-devolution" is anti-Welsh?

Bearing in mind that even the most optimistic (for the arch-devolutionists that is)opinion polls are suggesting 40% plus voting "no", then I'd suggest it is Wales, not the Welsh Conservatives which have the bigger problem- 4/10 of its own population being "anti-Welsh" doesn't seem a healthy situation at all to be in.

A musical tribute to the Tango-Man

In honour of the original stubborn turd that refuses to be flushed away political Resurrection Man, Peter Hain:

Quote of the day

The Bourne Doctrine:

If I feel that Wales is not being treated equally and fairly, if we are having to pay a price for the Labour legacy, then my job is to stand up for Wales in a way I believe the Labour Party in this National Assembly never did for the 11 years when they had their own colleagues in power in London

Although "equality" and "fairness" are pretty much subjective concepts, it'll be interesting to see if this policy also transfers over to the Scottish branch of the party.

We want a referendum on...

YouGov has carried out an opinion poll on behalf of the Constitution Society about how the public in England, Scotland and Wales feel about the proposed referendum on electoral reform, provisionally scheduled for next May.

The question with the most interesting answers was:

"Which constitutional issue would you most like to have a referendum on?"

The results in descending list of popularity:

·Britain’s membership of the EU
·Changing the voting system for electing MPs
·Reducing the number of MPs
·Replacing the House of Lords with an elected (or partially elected) chamber
·Setting up an English Parliament
·Fixed term Parliaments
·Equalising the size of Parliamentary constituencies
·Abolishing the monarchy
·Scottish independence

Looking into the data a little closer, we find:

1. For 43% of those sampled, the highest priority was European Union membership.

2. Despite all the attendant propaganda, only 33% thought the voting-reform referendum was most important.

3. 17% of the British public (British, not English as both Toque and David have pointed out) put a referendum on an English parliament in their top three of issues on which they would like a vote. The weighted Scottish section of the sample was less than 10%of the total. The Welsh part, it’s impossible to calculate as it’s included with the West Midlands. But even so, we must still be looking at figure of below 20% of the English public wanting such a referendum?

4. Only 29% of the Scottish sample put a referendum on Scottish independence in their top three of issues on which they would like a vote.

5. For Conservative supporters, the Top 3 subjects were:

British withdrawal from EU:64(!)%
Reducing number of MPs:32%
English parliament:26%

Labour supporters for the first and last category scored 33 and 13 respectively, indicating a very divergent range of opinion between themselves and the present government’s voters.

Update

Point 3), I didn't think through...

77/1 for a Home Countries Treble!

On international football nights, I always make sure that I have a little "hopeful/less solidarity", combined bet on the four home countries. Going on returns to date, let's just say that I wouldn't recommend it as an alternative means of investment to a few fivers stuffed under the biscuit tin under the bed...but one day I just know it's going to come off.

So, Paddy Power today are offering a whopping 77/1 (!!!) treble on Northern Ireland to beat Italy, a Scots' victory in Prague and the Welsh to sort out Bulgaria in Cardiff. At this juncture in the afternoon (before the first pint)it does seem somewhat of a far-fetched possibility, but the price of a pint has gone on it anyroads.

Can Northern Ireland, at least out of the three, do it tonight?

Italy won't be fancying it that much. Windsor Park is most certainly not the Stadio Olimpico; the fans' fervour (fortified with something a bit stronger than a caffè latte) could unsettle what is a pretty inexperienced team and, to be blunt, since no one expects them to win the Northern Ireland team itself has, well, nothing to lose.

But no, the head says "Of course not, we haven't a chance". And to be honest, it's one of the games where I can sit back (tonight, thanks to one of Ms O'Neill's little perverse jokes, in an Italian restaurant) and enjoy the game without stressing myself overly about the result. I'll predict a battling two-goal defeat with hopefully no injuries for the more important away game on Tuesday.
As long as Italy go home knowing they've been in a game, that'll do me nicely.

Update

Paddy won’t be sponsoring our Winter Cruise around Caribbean this year... but not to worry, once again we pull off a result against the kind of team we have no right to be pulling results off. Four points off our first two games against World Cup finalists, Slovenia and a team that has won the World Cup more times than we’ve even qualified for the darn thing is way beyond my expectations at the start of the campaign. I should have learnt by now never to write OWC off, time and time again they prove me wrong and despite actively following one of the best club teams in the world, I can honestly say they’ve given me my best football experiences simply because they have always been so unexpected.
So very proud, yet again, of my team.

"I'm leaving office to spend more time on my sunbed"

Not very often I'll pass on my hearty congratulations to the Parliamentary Labour Party, but they have made two very astute choices tonight giving Shaun Woodward and Mr Tango-Man the heave-ho from their front bench.

Woodward, even before his nondescript sojourn as SoS for Northern Ireland, always had struck me as one of the worst examples of the modern-day careerist politician, the type who wouldn't know what a principle (political or otherwise) was even if it were to hit him over the head with a baseball bat. The ultimate loyal apparatchik who was nevertheless capable of shamelessly flitting between parties without so much of a whiff of an explanation or apology. His waffling attempted justification, last weekend on Radio Ulster, for denying NI voters the right to have a Labour candidate on the ballot paper was exactly what I would have expected from the gutless weasel.

Which leads us seamlessly onto... Peter Hain.
Other than the man himself, I can't imagine there is anyone sad to see him wander off into political obscurity.

No you can't have an English Parliament...how about an English Labour Party instead?

This is a post I wanted to put up yesterday, so the theme isn't the straight plagiarism it might seem;)

Ed Miliband:

I'm not in favour of a separate English Parliament and I’m against creating two-tiers of MPs in the House of Commons. I think one thing we must do is change our approach to politics. Devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has strengthened the Union. I want to see a greater devolution of powers to localities and communities across Britain and I want to see more decisions being made locally. This will inevitably create tensions between local and national decisions, but we need a politics and a democracy that is mature enough to cope with these tensions and see debate and discussion as a source of strength

So, a "no" to an English parliament.
What about an English Labour Party then?

Labour's new leader has admitted that his predecessors may have interfered too much in the workings of the party in Scotland.

Ed Miliband told BBC Radio Scotland that things would be different under his leadership.

He said Scottish leader Iain Gray needed to set the direction for Scottish Labour ahead of Scottish Parliament elections in May next year.

Mr Miliband said he would work with him - but would not interfere.

"I think it's not so much a question of not meddling," he said.

"I do think that Iain Gray needs to set the direction for Scottish Labour and I'm going to absolutely be keen that he does that, but I'm also going to work with him."

Mr Miliband said he would support him in the run-up to the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections.

He added: "We've got very important elections next May, very important elections for Scotland and I'm very, very clear that we need Iain Gray as first minister for Scotland.

"I think that we weren't relaxed enough about Scottish Labour setting its own direction and I'm very clear that Labour in Scotland will be able to set its own direction.

And in Wales?

Wales needs a Labour Party ready to take on established thinking and argue for different ideas.

That's a Welsh as opposed to UK Labour Party? Apparently so:

Carwyn (Jones) is fighting to keep the free prescriptions and free bus passes that Welsh Labour is rightly proud of, and he has my full support.

Carwyn has led the way for a Labour Party that seeks to earn a return to power at Westminster by demonstrating that we can lead a responsible, listening administration in Wales.

We have a long way to go, but I believe that Labour has begun a journey that starts by ensuring that we are always on the side of Wales.

Very much a "hands off" approach there too it seems. And as Dilettante mentioned last week, the Northern Irish branch of Labour doesn't even appear to be on Ed's radar.

So, effectively now the UK Labour party is equivalent to the National (sic) Health Service; theoretically covering the whole nation, but in practice Balkanised into independent operating units serving England, N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales?

Not quite, after all Labour Party members in the three parts of the UK still have the right to vote and agree on UK-wide policy. But Miliband's speeches of the last couple of days do have implications for how national politics will develop over the period of this parliament.

Will loosening the strings mean that Scottish and Welsh Labour, in particular, will now have the room to operate a more narrow nationalistic opposition to the Coalition at Westminster? Miliband's creation of an English Labour Party certainly opens the door to that possibility.

Quote of the day

Carwyn Jones, Welsh Labour's leader:

"In short, we do it differently in Wales. We do it our way – and we make no apologies for that."

Alex Salmond and Martin McGuinness would probably claim the same for their respective parts of the United Kingdom, the difference being that thay are proud separatists whilst Jones is, theoretically at least, a Unionist.

Also interesting to see, as in Scotland, a bit of creative spin on behalf of Labour in terms of membership figures; the alleged "surge" since the General Election looks to have been the product of wishful thinking.

More powers will be great for Welsh Labour and...well, Welsh Labour.

So...

WELSH Labour’s big hitters are swinging behind the "yes" campaign in the Assembly powers referendum, believing it will help the party win a majority in devolved elections shortly afterwards.

...Welsh Labour will be supporting the "yes" campaign for the benefit of the party and...

The election of a Conservative-Lib Dem government in Westminster pushing through cuts to public spending has also dampened the anti-devolution instincts of many Labour MPs.

... to give Westminster a bloody nose and in a far and distant third place....

"The message I am going to have in the referendum is that we want to move to a system that’s cheaper, more effective and better for the people of Wales. It’s a small change, in a way, but it will make things cheaper and better."

... because it might make things "cheaper and better".

How principled.

Miliband: arch-devolutionist or just another opportunist at the helm?

Something Ed Miliband, who has won the Labour Leadership election this afternoon, said last summer whilst visiting the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff:

"I think it's really important to say this," he said. "Both in relation to Scotland and Wales, London needs to lighten up in terms of the ability for there to be difference and for Wales to pursue its own agenda."

"London" being whom or what exactly?

Let's see how "lightened-up" he remains if Scottish and Welsh Labour decide to pursue their own agendas, independent of "London".

Update

Dilettante got the chance yesterday to personally ask Milband his opinion on Labour participating in Northern Irish elections. Not as positive an attitude from the new leader, unfortunately, as that seen earlier from brother David and Andy Burnham.

Mr Tango-Man in multiple flip-flop shocker

Peter Hain is not one of my favourite politicians for a number of reasons; it appears I'm not alone, this is an exquisite hatchet job on "The Man with no Discernable Principles", carried out by Matt Withers:

His bid for the Shadow Cabinet doesn’t have a slogan, of course. But if it did, it could be "Peter Hain: Suddenly passionate about the issues he hadn’t previously shown a hint of interest in".

Political colleagues and opponents alike haven’t failed to be impressed by the audacity which Mr Hain has shown by presenting himself as the valiant white knight on topics which, curiously, hadn’t seemed to have driven him much before.

His flip-flop on the proposed Referendum for additional powers for the Assembly is a classic of its kind, as is his sudden realisation that Barnett *Must* be changed:

Equally curious is his fury that the UK coalition Government – in office for four months – have not scrapped the Barnett Formula, the brain-scrambling mathematical equation which decides how much cash gets sent to Wales each year.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg have shoved “much-needed change to the Barnett formula into the long grass after an election five years away”, he fumes.

How "much-needed" are the changes to the Barnett Formula? Well, not enough for the last Labour Government – in office for 13 years and of which Hain was a prominent member – to do anything about.

And perhaps he could have a word with the politician who, last year, said that “the level of funding delivered by the Barnett Formula is more or less fair” and added: "Those who are saying get rid of Barnett, throw everything up in the air and see where it lands, have got to understand there are consequences for the English regions as well."

The name of that politician? Er… Peter Hain.

Does make you wonder how much more of his personal history has been manipulated to his political benefit.

Why Lisbon may be the Euro-sceptics' Trojan Horse

David Lidington, the Europe Minister, speaking about proposals to amend the 1972 European Communities Act:

This Bill will make sure that never again will powers be transferred in a new treaty from Britain to Brussels without the British people having a say in a referendum."

And he added, "Our intention is that the British people will have the final say as to whether a new treaty is agreed or not. All of our European partners accept that it is the policy of the British Government. We see no reason to apologies for insisting on a bit more democracy than we've seen until now."

The Bill would increase democratic and Parliamentary control, scrutiny and accountability over EU decision making. No Government will be able to pass more powers to the European Union unless the British people have agreed that they can.

Bolting horses and unlocked stable doors immediately come to mind and, coincidence or not, his statement was made only several days after this YouGov Poll which disclosed that in Britain as a whole, if a referendum on membership were to be held tomorrow, only 33% would be prepared to vote for remaining within the European Union.

In the breakdown of regions and countries, only London voted to stay in the EU; Scotland voted 44-38% for leaving, West Midlands/Wales a whopping 49-34. Northern Ireland wasn't included in the sampling, but bearing in mind only the SDLP of the four major parties can in any way be described as Euro-enthusiasts (the DUP are downright hostile; the UUP sceptic; Sinn Fein fought tooth and nail against the Republic signing the Lisbon Treaty), I think we'd also be looking at a small majority voting to leave there too.

Liddington's promise and the opinion poll's results become a bit more noteworthy when they are considered together with Article 50 of Lisbon.

Prior to last year, the European Union could have been described as a bit like the Hotel California in that you could checkout any time you like, but you could never actually leave... or, at least, there was no solid legal provision to do so. Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty now offers that possibility.

Any referendum on future powers being transferred to the EU from Westminster would certainly deliver a big fat "No" and such a referendum result would inevitably, I believe, set the wheels in motion for a final withdrawal. I'm also convinced that it was for this very reason we were not given the opportunity by Labour government to vote on the Lisbon Treaty in the first place. If Liddington's bill does become law, then no future government will be able to deny us our democratic right in a similar fashion.

A Prophet hath no honour in (the talking shop) of his own country...

My 2,000th post.

I don't think I'm breaking any rules relating to data protection or internet etiquette, if I welcome my new reader from the US House of Representatives.

He/she joins my two regulars in the House of Commons and one a piece in Holyrood, the European Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Curiously enough, bearing in mind all the praise I've heaped upon the place and its denizens, none yet (as far as I know)from Stormont.

Assenting with the Dissenter

The Dissenter is the latest blogger to contribute to The Newsletter's Union 2021 series:

The time for the end of the Invest NI life-support machine is coming.
Nationalists cannot complain.

If there is to be an all-island economy (one of the largest in the world of which we are already an integrated part) then the public sector has to be reduced to the UK level.

Perhaps we should aim to be close to the Irish Republic's public sector of well under 40 per cent of GDP, otherwise a reduction in corporation tax is pointless.

Yes; the only quibble I'd have with his analysis is that we are not going to have a choice regarding the reduction of public sector. It's how we take advantage of the opportunities this situation will bring about which will be all-important for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and by extension, the Union.

I've enjoyed the series as a whole but it's interesting for me that it has been people like Owen Polley, Geoff McGimpsey and Lee Reynolds, Unionist bloggers who (in contrast to the politicians) have been able to step outside the comfort-zone and put a bit of lateral thinking towards the question asked. Maybe not that surprising really: there's not much motivation for politicians working (and doing quite well out of) the present system to attempt to change it

Belgian ethno-nat to address Plaid Conference

Flanders has been disturbing international watchdog bodies for some time with its developing problems with linguistic discrimination:

The United Nations and the European Commission have pinned down the Flanders region for linguistic 'discrimination'. In several reports published this week, both institutions express concern for the Flemish government's adoption of a 'wooncode', a housing code that reserves access to social housing for tenants who either speak Dutch, or commit to learning the language. For Martine Vandemeulebroucke, "the existence of linguistic discrimination and the emergence of racism between the country's two communities are taboo. And yet it exists. The long crisis ... has radicalised public opinion. The Mrax [Movement against racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia] more accustomed to having to defend illegal immigrants or Moroccan and Turkish minorities, is beginning to receive complaints of racism between the Flemish and French speaking communities."

The original can be read here in French.

The leading party in not only Flanders, but now also Belgium as a whole, after the recent elections is Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie (New Flemish Alliance) which, amongst other measures, advocates within Flanders:

1. Preferential choice in schooling being given to Belgian families who have at least one Dutch-speaking parent.
2. Libraries being forced to stock at least 75% "Flemish" language books.
3. Having to prove "ties" to Flanders if you wish to buy a house or move into low-rent housing.
4. Blood donation sessions being only conducted amongst people who were mono-lingually Dutch (because, of course, Dutch-speaking blood is different to the French-speaking sort).

Whilst they can in no way be compared to the out and out racist headbangers of Vlaams Blok, their own self-description as being "centre-right civic nationalists" is seriously stretching it.

Which makes this invitation surprising (or maybe not):

A ROW has erupted after Plaid Cymru invited a senior politician from the controversial Flemish Nationalist party to speak at its annual conference.

Tomorrow MEP Frieda Brepoels will address Plaid delegates in Aberystwyth.

Her party Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliante (sic) (New Flemish Alliance), which became the biggest party in Belgium after a general election earlier this year, has been accused of promoting discriminatory policies in favour of Flemish speakers.

The defence offered by the Plaid spokesman is, well, not the most watertight I've heard; ie Labour votes with them in the European Parliament and:

"It is ludicrous to suggest that the fact that an N-VA representative is attending Plaid’s conference means that we will be adopting their policies."

Not really the point though is it?
You could invite Nick Griffin you have a word with the faithful without promising to adopt the BNP's policies- the fact he was invited in the first place is what would disturb people.

But OK, *if* Plaid Cymru are not in favour of the linguistic policies being adopted by the N-V A, a simple statement to that effect would help to kill off the controversy.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria iungare coalition per Conservatives*

From the Western Mail:

IEUAN WYN JONES has come close to ruling out the possibility of a "Rainbow" coalition involving Plaid Cymru, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats after next year’s National Assembly election.

Plaid’s annual conference opens today in Aberystwyth with the unveiling of a series of radical ideas that could be included in the manifesto.

In a pre-conference interview with the Western Mail, Mr Jones was initially reluctant to consider possible scenarios after the election.

But when pressed on whether it would be possible for Plaid to go into coalition with the two parties at Westminster who were imposing swingeing spending cuts, he said: "Let’s be honest. I think that does make a Rainbow [government] more difficult. I think there’s no question about that. The political context means that would be much, much more difficult to achieve than it was in 2007."

The day of their conference opening would not have been the best day for Ieuan Wyn Jones to admit otherwise; proposing to swop one "London" Unionist party for two others (especially when one of that two would be the Conservatives )would have gone down like a lead balloon with his fellow nats I'm sure.

However, counterintuitively, such an administration might be beneficial for Wales.

A Westminster government dealing with a coalition government containing members of its own parties may, just may, be tempted to give more leeway in cases of doubt than it would with a Labour/Plaid Cymru coalition. At the very least, a coalition in Cardiff containing Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would get a more sympathetic hearing from the UK government. Problem for Plaid Cymru is that such a coalition would most likely cause Labour to unleash the hounds of the bitterest hell against them; I can't imagine the more "red" wing of the nationalist party would be too chuffed with the situation either.

So, Plaid Cymru are potentially going to be left with what must be ultimate dilemma for a nationalist party- to do right by your country and damage, possibly fatally your party... or to play for pure partisan political advantage and possibly see your country suffer more than it may have done otherwise.




* I will be highly surprised if that's the correct Latin translation, anyone got a better one?

Blissful delusion will work only to the next election

I covered briefly the prospective Carmarthen MP, Jonathan Edwards' rather OTT boasts about his online presence prior to the last election- but four months on he is now being interviewed as the constituency's MP, so he must have done something right:

THE day I met Carmarthen MP Jonathan Edwards, the Red Arrows – which he feels are a waste of money – were proving a force to be reckoned with.

"I've come down here on holiday but I've spent the entire day giving interviews," he says from his parents' caravan in Newport. "But how can you let something like that go? Nine million pounds is being spent on what is, in effect, a display unit while cuts are being made in the military left, right and centre, including artillery guns and tanks."

The Red Arrows issue has garnered him a bit of UK-wide publicity but the interview for me is interesting on another level:

"This is what brought me to politics way back in the 1980s," he explains. "I was brought up in a highly political family" (his county councillor father John was a Trade Union shop steward for the Electricians' Union the AEEU), "and this opened my eyes to the importance of social justice amongst the working class. My father had always come from the left of the political spectrum but the Kinnock years made him change track. He couldn't bear to see the Labour party turning into a centre right party and so my father became Plaid."

This man is seriously left-wing (even to the extent of quoting favourably from Trotsky later on!), the kind of cannon-fodder Labour exploited in not only Wales, but also Scotland and Northern England for decades.

But the fact that Labour was regarded as the most effective party of opposition to the potential "London"(sic) Conservative Government is blithely ignored in his explanation as to why the General Election proved ultimately unsuccessful for Plaid Cymru:

We expected to make gains in the last election but this didn't materialise. This was mainly because it was a very UK based election where voters were more concerned about who smiled the most in the TV leadership debates rather than the policies they were coming out with. This naturally made things very difficult for Plaid Cymru.

Nothing to do with the fact people realised your party's MPs, most probably, would have next to no input into how your part of the UK was governed then?

The underlining element in a strong political party is how that party justifies its existence

Plaid Cymru previously could partly justify their existence to electorate by setting themselves up as the main opposition to Labour (both the local and UK-wide version). Now, with the changes at Westminster, that justification obviously no longer applies because Labour in both Scotland and Wales has taken over the role of official opposition to Big Bad London; Salmond seems to be subtly repositioning the SNP to cope with the changing situation, Plaid Cymru don't appear to have even realised yet they need to.

Referendum or not to referendum? You could always ask the people...

Further to this post, from Monday morning's Scotsman.

THE Scottish Government has confirmed it is poised to drop its flagship plan for an independence referendum in this parliament, despite spending three and a half years preparing for the vote.

First Minister Alex Salmond is set to abandon plans to put his referendum bill before MSPs and will instead appeal directly to the electorate to back the need for a vote on independence at next year's Holyrood election.

The strategy was unveiled to Nationalist MSPs last week and will be discussed at a Cabinet meeting tomorrow.

The SNP had pledged to hold a referendum before the 2007 election, with a preferred date of St Andrew's Day, on 30 November, this year.

But with any bill expected to be voted down by opposition parties in Holyrood, Mr Salmond is instead planning to "appeal over the heads" of the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Tory parties and try to get the electorate to support a vote on independence

I think the pledge was to hold it before next year's election not 2007 but pedantry aside, the cancellation/postponement is a recognition of political reality. But that reality, in terms of the likely voting breakdown at Holyrood, has been the case since the SNP came to power as a minority government, so what's changed?

Not so much "changed" as "not materialised in the first place". The hoped for increase in momentum pushing for it from the public has, despite projects such as the National Conversation, simply not developed in any meaningful form.

*However* the Conservatives and the Lib Dems want a referendum on an AV voting system, for which there is also no "momentum" from the electorate whatsoever for. The Labour Party, although not 100% united on the issue, want a referendum next spring on more powers for Wales. Guaranteed a "yes" vote on that one? Not at all certain; the "yes"s are hardly riding forward on a wave of overwhelming public support.

So... if the SNP do make the independence referendum in Scotland an election issue (and they would be silly not to), then what coherent arguments in a democracy can the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, in particular, make against its granting?



Thanks to Tony for the handy background on this one;)

From "Austerity" to "Prosperity" to...?

I fell out with The Economist a while, ago but over this summer I’ve been drawn back by a series of excellent articles on the barmies taking over right-wing politics in the US, central Europe’s increasingly economic and ethnic volatility and the UK government's developing radicalism.

Indirectly connected to the latter is this piece on the present position of Alex Salmond within the larger Union picture and how the looming "austerity" may alter it:

It is too soon to know just how austerity will play out in Scotland, and Mr Salmond’s ability to defy gravity should never be underrated. But he came to power to effect a revolution, to sweep Scotland, generous welfare state and all, to independence. That outcome, never more than possible, now looks highly improbable. Secession sentiment took a knock when Whitehall had to bail out Scotland’s big banks. Now budget cuts look set to erase much of the social spending that set Scotland proudly apart from the rest of Britain. In the resulting resentment Labour is likely to flourish, and Scotland to provide the party with a platform for national recovery, as it did in the 1980s. It remains to be seen whether Mr Salmond’s landing will be a soft one.

Labour’s (undeserved) Scottish renaissance has been a developing theme on here and other blogs but how the nationalist parties in not only Scotland, but also N.Ireland and Wales deal with that inevitable "austerity" which will follow the cuts in public services and bureaucracy is something that publicly they (the nats) are keeping quiet on.

The fundamental and uncomfortable truth is that the three economies (and to a lesser extent, that of a large part of N.England) are public-sector driven. Factor in "the pots of money" "thrown at public services" and their "supercharged welfare state", a second fundamental and uncomfortable truth is that economic dependence has made the separation of N.Ireland, Scotland or Wales from the Union a financial impossibility. Nationalists, paradoxically, have increased dependence on Westminster by pork-barrelling their own part of the United Kingdom.

Remove the pork-barrel and the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and Sinn Fein are left in a quandary. Logically everyone knows that the public-sector and welfare dependency has stunted potential economic growth in Scotland, N.Ireland and Wales. Logically, everyone knows an attempt to change that state of affairs will cause a great deal of a short-term pain and unpopularity at the ballot box. Logically everyone (Unionist, nationalist and constitutional apathetic) knows that economies built on the minimum of state involvement are the long-term solution to building their own country’s prosperity, whether that country is within or without the United Kingdom

Dealing with the second truism has been taken out of the hands of the administrations in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh. Their economies are going to be changed, whether they like it or not and Westminster, not they, will be taking the the blame. How the various nationalist parties react to this may determine the future road of the Union Debate.

Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein, I suspect, will stick to their safe, ideological economic orthodoxies- it's the state's (not the wider economy's) job to provide, even if that state happens to be the hated British one. The SNP and SDLP, however, if they have the balls, can push their followers and the wider populace out of the comfort-zone and start looking to how economies such as Slovenia and Estonia have developed to their present position (clue: it wasn't by a top heavy public sector). Balls will be needed because it will involve re-education at a time when the more simplistic, populist approach followed by the Deficit Deniers of Labour and others will be reaping a higher electoral benefit. But long-term, if they are to have any hope whatsoever of convincing their respective electorate that independence/unity with Dublin would be feasible, they will need to be proactive in taking advantage of the restructuring brought about by "austerity".

If (against my expectations) they do and modern, entrepreneurial thrusting economies evolve where does that then leave Unionists in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?

Having to greatly up their game. Relying on the fact that only the UK can guarantee pensions and other social benefits is the present effective, although defensive, strategy... but if that was no longer the case, then what?

Just wait until...

Whilst sensibly not quite pledging to "smash" its coalition partners, Plaid Cymru does face problems typical of minor parties...:

PLAID Cymru intends to establish “clear green water” between itself and its Labour coalition partners in advance of next year’s National Assembly election, the party’s policy director said yesterday.

Consciously echoing Rhodri Morgan’s use of the term “clear red water” to characterise the differences between Welsh Labour and New Labour, Nerys Evans said the party would be unveiling radical new policies in the coming weeks.

Among the proposals will be one that Wales should be able to levy taxes and charges on its natural resources like water and energy sources.

... and those problems in a nutshell are:

a) It will not have the sufficient numbers to form a standalone administration, so any promises made are dependent on prospective coalition partners.
b) As a minor partner for the last four years, it has been working relatively well with Labour. If the proposed policies are so "radical", "new" and presumably great improvements, surely whilst they have actually been in power was the time to introduce them?