James Mitchell: Third time could be lucky for Wales

WALES goes to the polls today in its third referendum on devolution in just over three decades. But the result looks set to be very different from those in 1979 and 1997. By a vote of four to one, the Welsh threw out proposals for devolution on St David's Day 1979. Eighteen years later, Wales supported devolution by the tiniest of margins. In 1997, many supporters of Welsh devolution had all but given up while awaiting the last declared result. Carmarthenshire was the last area to declare and with the largest recorded Yes vote, took the Yes side to victory in a nail-biting conclusion. Opponents questioned the legitimacy of the result in which 50.35 per cent voted Yes on a turnout of 50.1 per cent.

The contrast with Scotland is striking. In 1979, Scots had only narrowly voted for devolution, though failing to overcome the requirement that 40 per cent of the eligible electorate had to support the measure. Eighteen years on, Scotland overwhelmingly voted for devolution but there was a much more significant change recorded between the two referendums in Wales than the equivalents in Scotland. Ron Davies, the architect of Welsh devolution whose career ended tragically early over a personal issue, insisted that the Assembly would be for all of Wales, knowing full well that the result meant its supporters would have to work doubly hard to ensure its legitimacy.

What has been on offer in Scotland and Wales has also differed. In 1997, Scotland voted for a tax-varying parliament with legislative powers. Wales was offered something more modest and less coherent described by Rick Rawlings, leading scholar of the subject, as "quasi-devolution".

The Welsh Assembly had no powers to make its own laws but was able, within constraints over a limited range of matters, to make policy within the confines of legislation passed by Parliament at Westminster. There is considerable scope for governments to make policy within the parameters, especially if money is available. As in Scotland, it helped that there was so much money sloshing around in public finances in the first decade of devolution. This was an easy time to be in government. Welsh policy initiatives may have been more small "c" conservative, to the frustration of New Labour radicals. But there were some significant symbolic policy initiatives. Nye Bevan, the Welsh founder of the NHS who had resigned from the British cabinet in 1951 when his party introduced prescription charges, was the inspiration for reductions in prescription charges from 2001 leading to their abolition altogether in 2007.Welsh Labour portrayed itself as real Labour, distinct from New Labour.

The real challenge was to convince a largely sceptical Welsh public that it was worth having an Assembly at all. Having lots of money allowing for popular policies helped. Over time, support for devolution broadened out beyond its narrow base of support in 1997. The most significant shift occurred amongst Welsh Conservatives. The Welsh Tories embraced devolution in a way that their Scottish counterparts never have.

Two pressures have been significant over the past decade and more since the establishment of the Assembly. First, there was a conscious effort following the narrow referendum result to embed Welsh devolution. It was led by Rhodri Morgan after the brief, unhappy period when Alun Michael had been parachuted into lead Welsh Labour by Tony Blair. The approach adopted by Scottish and Welsh Labour differed. Morgan, who was Welsh First Minister from 2000 to 2009, was an Oxford and Harvard educated Welsh-speaker who would openly criticise Tony Blair. Jack McConnell, Scotland's longest serving first minister, by contrast, lacked Morgan's intellect and self-confidence and seemed in awe of his party's senior figures in London. Morgan's call for "clear red water" in a speech in December 2002 was an important statement of intent, though it would prove less substantial than he would have wished given Welsh devolution's limitations. McConnell's approach was summed up in his less than inspiring call for Holyrood to "do less but better".

Secondly, it became obvious early on that the Welsh model adopted had deep flaws. There was no legal distinction between the Assembly and its government. There was a need to separate these out to ensure that the government was responsible for executive policy and accountable to the Assembly. The Assembly had to ask parliament at Westminster to pass legislation which the Assembly government would then have responsibility for implementing. Leaving aside views on whether Wales should have more or less devolution, a consensus built up that the system was sub-optimal though far from dysfunctional.

In 2002, a cross-party commission was set up by the Assembly under Lord Richard, a former Labour leader in the Lords who had fallen out with Tony Blair, which reported two years later in favour of giving the Assembly law-making powers, formally separating its legislative and executive functions and adopting the single transferrable voting system in preference to the additional member system (AMS).

Richard was seen in some quarters as a belated Welsh version of the Scottish Constitutional Convention.

Ron Davies had famously described devolution as a process, not an event but the process of reforming the Welsh model has taken time. Westminster passed legislation in 2006 which dealt with some of these matters but still left the system of making laws cumbersome and slow.This process culminates in the referendum today. If the polls are to be believed, Wales will emphatically endorse the reforms that will give it an Assembly that looks more like that which operates in Scotland. Its legislative competences will be more limited than those of the Scottish Parliament and its funding will still be determined by Westminster and it will continue to be elected by AMS.

The referendum debate in Wales has been very low key. In part, this reflects the technical nature of the debate. This is evident in the question to be put to the Welsh people. After much debate, the Electoral Commission came up with a convoluted question which attempts to describe the current arrangements, before asking whether the Assembly should be "able to make laws on all matters in the 20 subject areas it has powers for". At three times the length of the Lords' prayer, it is unlikely to be read by many voters.

The other reason is that there are no formal lead campaign groups, representing each side, registered with the Electoral Commission. Under rules governing the referendum, lead campaign groups have benefits otherwise unavailable, including higher spending limits, free distribution of information to electors, referendum broadcasts, free use of certain public rooms and publicly funded grants. "Yes for Wales" applied for such status but was denied it because opponents refused to apply. Such status can only be given to both sides. "True Wales", the main No campaign body, chose not apply, thus seriously limiting the nature of the campaign, a particular problem in Wales which does not have anything approaching the national media that exists in Scotland.

Supporters of the No side see this as an astute move while opponents regard it as cynical. It ensures a very low turnout. Two polls this week suggest the changes will be endorsed convincingly but opponents, many of whom appear to be anti-devolutionists re-running the 1997 referendum, are preparing their excuses and will focus on the low turnout questioning the legitimacy of the exercise. This is the old 40 per cent rule in another guise. However, Wales has moved on from the 1970s and few will be fooled by this tactic.

• James Mitchell is professor of politics at Strathclyde University.