Metro

We get more from Whitehall than we pay in. It's far from a handout.

Notwithstanding the fact that that's irrelevant to whether or not it's a handout, that's really disingenuous.

Help yourself to a region's natural resources for centuries, then just walk away. Decimate the region's heavy industry and fail to provide replacement investment. It's easy to impoverish a region, then have the bean counters make out that you're not paying as much in as you're getting in handouts.

Why is it you think that as a region Wales isn't paying more in then exactly? Are we supposed to believe that we're genetically different or something? And this has been the case way before WAG or WG, so don't try to pin it on them.

We get more from Whitehall than we pay in. It's far from a handout.

Notwithstanding the fact that that's irrelevant to whether or not it's a handout, that's really disingenuous.

Help yourself to a region's natural resources for centuries, then just walk away. Decimate the region's heavy industry and fail to provide replacement investment. It's easy to impoverish a region, then have the bean counters make out that you're not paying as much in as you're getting in handouts.

Why is it you think that as a region Wales isn't paying more in then exactly? Are we supposed to believe that we're genetically different or something? And this has been the case way before WAG or WG, so don't try to pin it on them.

A certain nationalist dogma has built up around the "exploitation" of Wales by England, and certainly the "English State".

During they heydey of the coal and iron industries in Wales, these were privately owned industries. A mix of lucky local landowners, absentee or incoming landowners (e.g. the Butes, who married into a Welsh landowning family), and industrialists/entrepreneurs, got rich. And huge numbers of Welsh (and some English and Irish) workers faced terrible working conditions but had higher take-home incomes than they would have had as agricultural labourers or subsistence farmers.Taxation of production and incomes was virtually non-existent. So the state didn't really get their hands on much of this wealth or income at all.

There were two main taxes: excises (on certain products and imports) and property rates. Property rates stayed local. And excises were levied across the UK and fell most heavily on those areas making most use of imported products - probably not South Wales.

By the time the state grew significantly, coal and steel were on their way towards unprofitability, and then nationalisation. The heavy industries then limped on in large part because of a mix of explicit and implicit subsidies via state ownership.

So I don't think there is really a time in the "modern" era where the state can be said to have economically exploited Wales, or Wales would have made a positive net contribution to the fisc.

I'm not saying UK policymakers have always done right and got right for Wales. I think the winding down of heavy industry was too quick. I think our country is too London-centric and something radical in terms of decentralisation of government functions is required. (I'd support moving the administrative and political capital to Brum or Manchester say).

And some of the blame probably can be laid at the WG's door. The biggest decline in relative Welsh GVA took place from the late 1990s to about 2012. It was not during the big de-industrialisation of the 1980s, when new factories and inward investment actually offset a lot of the fall in GVA (if not employment).

It's irrelevant whether or not it was the state doing the exploitation.

Furthermore, economic theory makes it clear that the economy at large benefits at large by goods & services, jobs, etc. Just because the money might have ended up elsewhere, or the balance sheet of a few individual millionaires like the Butes, it's still incorrect to conclude that the region wasn't paying its way, by virtue of the fact that the local workforce were being exploited as well as the natural resources.

We get more from Whitehall than we pay in. It's far from a handout.

Notwithstanding the fact that that's irrelevant to whether or not it's a handout, that's really disingenuous.

Help yourself to a region's natural resources for centuries, then just walk away. Decimate the region's heavy industry and fail to provide replacement investment. It's easy to impoverish a region, then have the bean counters make out that you're not paying as much in as you're getting in handouts.

Why is it you think that as a region Wales isn't paying more in then exactly? Are we supposed to believe that we're genetically different or something? And this has been the case way before WAG or WG, so don't try to pin it on them.

A certain nationalist dogma has built up around the "exploitation" of Wales by England, and certainly the "English State".

During they heydey of the coal and iron industries in Wales, these were privately owned industries. A mix of lucky local landowners, absentee or incoming landowners (e.g. the Butes, who married into a Welsh landowning family), and industrialists/entrepreneurs, got rich. And huge numbers of Welsh (and some English and Irish) workers faced terrible working conditions but had higher take-home incomes than they would have had as agricultural labourers or subsistence farmers.Taxation of production and incomes was virtually non-existent. So the state didn't really get their hands on much of this wealth or income at all.

There were two main taxes: excises (on certain products and imports) and property rates. Property rates stayed local. And excises were levied across the UK and fell most heavily on those areas making most use of imported products - probably not South Wales.

By the time the state grew significantly, coal and steel were on their way towards unprofitability, and then nationalisation. The heavy industries then limped on in large part because of a mix of explicit and implicit subsidies via state ownership.

So I don't think there is really a time in the "modern" era where the state can be said to have economically exploited Wales, or Wales would have made a positive net contribution to the fisc.

I'm not saying UK policymakers have always done right and got right for Wales. I think the winding down of heavy industry was too quick. I think our country is too London-centric and something radical in terms of decentralisation of government functions is required. (I'd support moving the administrative and political capital to Brum or Manchester say).

And some of the blame probably can be laid at the WG's door. The biggest decline in relative Welsh GVA took place from the late 1990s to about 2012. It was not during the big de-industrialisation of the 1980s, when new factories and inward investment actually offset a lot of the fall in GVA (if not employment).

All good arguments RC but Wales did have a huge impact on the success and growth of the British State as it was Welsh "steam coal", the ultra-high carbon content of which gave the Royal Navy a crucial advantage over all foreign navies, that fostered Britain's preeminence between 1851 and 1901. Thousands of men and boys died mining that coal.

It's irrelevant whether or not it was the state doing the exploitation.

Furthermore, economic theory makes it clear that the economy at large benefits at large by goods & services, jobs, etc. Just because the money might have ended up elsewhere, or the balance sheet of a few individual millionaires like the Butes, it's still incorrect to conclude that the region wasn't paying its way, by virtue of the fact that the local workforce were being exploited as well as the natural resources.

I don't think it is irrelevant. The fact these gains were very much privately retained by individuals means they weren't redistributed by the state to the common Englishman. The common Englishman was just as much exploited as the common Welshman.

So today's Welsh people have no special historical claim for economic exploitation that (most of) today's English people couldn't make. I think there is much more on the cultural side of things - language, religion, etc - to argue where there was an English state versus Wales side of things.

In terms of MrBlueSky's point. I appreciate Welsh coal was very useful to the Royal Navy. But:
a) It was purchased at a market price from private operators.
b) If it was not available, I'm not sure the alternative coal would have been so inferior that it would have meant the Pax Britannica was at risk. Welsh coal didn't reach, errr, "full steam" until the last third of the 19th century, and by that point the Pax Britannica was underpinned by economics as well as the Royal Navy (it later fell apart because of both economic and military competition!).

Look, I'm not saying that historic conditions in the mines and factories weren't awful. I'm not saying that, despite some attempts at factories and mines regulations, the government of the time let owners get away with such awful conditions. I'm not saying that it was fair that the landowners got to keep so much of the profits (indeed, there is a strong case for taxation, as a lot of them made windfall gains when the coal was discovered under land previously good for little else than grazing).

I am saying that there was an element of choice in miners becoming miners - and that wages were higher than they could have got elsewhere. And I'm saying that it was exploitation by private individuals of private individuals - English, Welsh, Scottish, etc.

RandomComment has a point. The country was a very different place back then and people didn't think of themselves as Welsh/English/Scottish as strongly as they do now.

However, I do feel that Wales should have total ownership of its natural resources.

RC the point about Welsh Steam Coal was that it made your battleships go faster with virtually no smoke emitted, preventing detection. You could be on the enemy, blast them and away. It was a crucial advantage.

I'm no commie but this is an excellent piece from the Morning Star highlighting its value during WW1

https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-7 ... ZRpwdHTWhA

We get more from Whitehall than we pay in. It's far from a handout.

Notwithstanding the fact that that's irrelevant to whether or not it's a handout, that's really disingenuous.

Help yourself to a region's natural resources for centuries, then just walk away. Decimate the region's heavy industry and fail to provide replacement investment. It's easy to impoverish a region, then have the bean counters make out that you're not paying as much in as you're getting in handouts.

Why is it you think that as a region Wales isn't paying more in then exactly? Are we supposed to believe that we're genetically different or something? And this has been the case way before WAG or WG, so don't try to pin it on them.

I thought it was the Butes and Crawshays that profited from our resources, and not the state.

All good arguments RC but Wales did have a huge impact on the success and growth of the British State as it was Welsh "steam coal", the ultra-high carbon content of which gave the Royal Navy a crucial advantage over all foreign navies, that fostered Britain's preeminence between 1851 and 1901. Thousands of men and boys died mining that coal.

Your post would make sense if the Royal Navy fought any engagements of note in the period you mention. It wasn't called Pax Britannica for nothing.

RC the point about Welsh Steam Coal was that it made your battleships go faster with virtually no smoke emitted, preventing detection. You could be on the enemy, blast them and away. It was a crucial advantage.

I'm no commie but this is an excellent piece from the Morning Star highlighting its value during WW1

https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-7 ... ZRpwdHTWhA

What were the naval engagements the Royal Navy faced during this period? (1850-1901 not Jutland)

Jellicoes 'invisible' grand fleet steaming into jutland