In China we are currently in the Year of the Dragon (EDIT – actually, it is the Year of the Tiger) until February at least, when it becomes the Year of the Rabbit which is (no longer) appropriate, since I’m going to talk about Wales, whose symbol is Y Ddraig Goch (It was a good idea when it worked – honest).  But in Wales, this year will not be the year of the dragon, tiger or the rabbit: it will be, in pure geekery terms, the Year of the Referendum(s).

Alongside the excitement that is the AV Referendum(!), the Welsh public will also get the opportunity to vote in a referendum to extend the powers of the National Assembly for Wales.  Or rather, they will get a chance to vote to confirm the extension of powers of the NAfW, since those powers were already granted to the Assembly, but only through a system whereby they had to ask for each power individually, and the granting of all primary legislative powers in one go had to be verified by referendum as stipulated in the Government of Wales Act 2006… you know what, it is fairly complex – if you are incredibly interested, in the process, have a read of the Electoral Commission stuff on it.  Or ask someone from Wales, who may or may not be able to help you.

Anyway, so in Wales they have two referendums in a little over two months, while the rest of us have one in May.  Which brings me to my point – in a representative democracy, when we give over our right to make decisions by electing someone to make them for us, why have referendums in the first place?

Apparently, I wasn’t the only one asking this.  The House of Lords convened a Select Committee on the Constitution to investigate “the role of referendums in the UK’s constitutional experience” and produced a report (12th Report of Session 2009-10 entitled “Referendums in the UK”, pdf here).  In it, they listed the 9 large-scale referendums constituting the “modern history of referendums in the UK”:

1973 – NI Sovereignty
1975 – EEC Membership
1979 – Scottish devolution
1979 – Welsh devolution
1997 – Scottish devolution
1997 – Welsh devolution
1998 – Devolution for London
1998 – Good Friday Agreement
2004 – North-East Devolution

As you can see from the list above, prior to Labour winning power in 1997, there had been only 4 referendums, while the subject of each referendum (with the exception of the Good-Friday Agreement, though you can make a case for it as well) is related to the constitutional future of the UK or a component part thereof.

The House of Lords Select Committee weighed the evidence for and against referendums:

For:

  • Enhances the democratic process
  • Difficult to reverse if public support
  • Can “settle” an issue
  • Can be a “protective device” (safeguard against controversy)
  • Promotes voter education
  • Enhances citizen engagement
  • Popular with voters
  • Complements representative democracy

Against:

  • It is a “tactical device”
  • Dominated by elite groups
  • Have a damaging effect on minority groups
  • It is a “conservative device” (block on progress)
  • Do not “settle” an issue
  • Over-simplify issues
  • Tend not to be about issue in question
  • Costly
  • Undermine representative democracy

Given the balance of evidence the Committee took from experts in the field, academics, constitutional lawyers from across the world and experienced referendum actors, they concluded that there are “significant drawbacks to the use of referendums” and particularly regrettable was “the ad hoc manner in which referendums have been used, often as a tactical device, by the government of the day.”

However, they relented slightly by stating that “if referendums are to be used, they are most appropriately used in relation to fundamental constitutional issues”.  They provided several examples, two of which are relevant to this post: a referendum to change the electoral system for the House of Commons and “for any of the nations of the UK to secede from the Union”.

So, we’re having one of those (the changing the electoral system one, in case you’ve missed it) but we’ve been denied the latter by a) unionist parties not letting the Scottish Government have a referendum or b) the SNP being too scared to bring forward their bill (depending what side of the fence you are sitting on).  In Wales, they’ll have a referendum (which was part of the amendment to devolution that was the Government of Wales Act 2006) in order to amend devolution further (and I’ll probably write more about that nearer the time) so that fits with the using referendums in relation to “fundamental constitutional issues” idea.

I guess my point is this.  A committee of one of the Houses of Parliament at Westminster has indicated its preference for holding a referendum in cases where a constituent nation is considering secession.  Thus, while not legally watertight or providing the Scottish Parliament with the competence to legislate in this area, I think it indicates that, should a Scottish Government pass a bill at Holyrood calling for a referendum on secession from the union, the UK Parliament may have given itself a problem in denying such a plebiscite.  Though the report itself was only advisory, and conducted under the previous government, so perhaps not.  For constitutional geeks like me (and, if you have gotten this far in the post, probably you too) the report is worth a read.