Hi!

Thanks for the notice.

At the time I made every enquiry that was open to me and the media office of BNP said that they had not discussed the position, but in the spokesperson’s opinion, the BNP would prefer a ‘yes’ majority. Surprising the British Communist Party has also come out in support of a ‘no’ vote, while the Weslh Communist Party have come in favour of a ‘yes’ vote. I don’t think that either Y4W or TW can be associated with the points of views of these parties as they are NOT in association.

At the time that people made the allegation about support from the BNP they had no evidence and should not have made the comment.

True Wales does not support any kind of fascism, benign or otherwise and we deplore the extremism of both the BNP and the CP. I’m sure you understand that.

Bye

Len Gibbs

http://bit.ly/dEvpDw

How scarce slots are in the coming years depends heavily on who is government. A majority Tory government will probably have a full legislative programme for its first two sessions (2010-11, a long session, and 2011-12). Thereafter, it’s less clear, but it will still come very late. A hung parliament might open the chances up more as there will be little that the 3 main UK parties can agree on, but whether a new Welsh devolution bill would fall into that category has to be questionable.

The reality is that the 2006 Act’s provisions are all that there are available for the present, and indeed the foreseeable future, and why they need to be made to work as best they can. They may be flawed, but they are all there is.

It is a myth that the devolved insitutions and devolved politicians focus more on constitutional and nation building issues than they do on public services. This is a myth that needs to be challenged as it is plainly untrue. The fact that a lie forms one of True Wales’ main points does somewhat reassure me as a pro-devolutionist that their arguments can be taken apart.

One can only speculate…but then perhaps not…
…surely you have read my comments “Rhodri Morgan talks to Martin Shipton about the difficulties surrounding the further powers debate” link…http://www.truewalesnocampaign.org.uk/Grassroots_Comment.html, just below your article, ‘Quis custodiet ipso custodes?’ which is under my other article “Hence home, you idle creatures” on Shipton’s interview with Carywn Jones.
The close link between WAG and AWC was transparent, Betsan Powys of the BBC used the phrase ‘the alias” to describe the AWC. Anyone who attended a roadshow, I did twice could see it instantly. I went to the first at Port Talbot where I was left confused as to what the AWC was supposed to be doing and wanting to achieve and the other at Swansea where members of the Judge Ray Singh and Prof Parry, openly advocated just not Part 4 but autonomy. The only comfort was that not very many people bothered to turn up at either.
However, Sir Emyr has made the verbal comment that there is something in the Report for both the yes and the no groups to take from the Report. My critique was based on that premise.
At the presentation I made the comment to Sir Emyr that the Report’s analysis of public interest indicated that there would be a minority vote. I reference it above and describe it as bad democracy.
In a democratic society, sometimes we have to put up with poor behaviour of an administration using £1.3 as a ploy to promote their minority political objectives. But it has served an good purpose. One of the things that the ‘NO’ campaign can take from the Report is that Sir Emyr highlighted in his presentation a defect in the GOWA 2006 that needs addressing, and that is the issue of scrutiny.
For that I think it is worth the £1.3M if it wakes people up and stops them sleep-walking into one of the poorest forms of constitutional government known to mankind…well I may be exaggerating a little. I’d be quite content if it wakes peoploe up to what is really behind the One Wales Agreement push for a referendum. And if you haven’t read my two articles, I recommend you do so because…Rhordi wants autonomy and I. W . Jones wants a full law-making Parliament for Wales and Carwyn, enough said…he seems to live in another planet.
The words autonomy and full-law making Parliament for Wales words are not mine, they are Rhodri’s and IWJ.
I am grateful that we have had the AWC Report because it is a benchmark for reference in the forthcoming referendum campaign, in which True Wales will be all over the place drawing attention to the defects of the GOWA and the STATED intentions of WAG. Reference AWC Report 2009 and the Shipton interviews.

“you are a politician” If my mother knew she’d hang her head in shame!
Truly, I am an innocent abroad unused to the wily ways of politicians.
I had hoped by this stage that people would recognise that I am not a supporter of the existing position any more than I am of moving to Part 4. Both arrangements are defective and I would prefer to be more radical about what might replace them. But, in all probability the AMs are going to push the ‘trigger’ and ask Peter Hain for a referendum. You might like to look at: http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8460214.stm
It will tell you a lot about what might happen.

Overall, everyone has behaved themselves, including me, and I hope that these exchanges of opinion will help to have more reasoned debates in the future. Thanks.

As far as I can see the National Assembly has much better scrutiny than exists at Westminster with far more opportunity for people outside the institution to have an input into legislation. I don’t see how the current arrangements where MPs look at LCOs but have nothing to do with any legislation flowing from them provides a good level of scrutiny. I think you need to make the case with some examples of where you see improvements as a result of Westminster’s input.

I thank you though, and I should have before, for opening this debate, at least your arguments are better presented and not tainted by paranoia as are so many of the contributors on other blogs from the No side.

“Going back to the Richard Commission and the All Wales Convention we see well argued cases for change.”
I have avoided detouring into the “Richard Commission” as it is outside the remit and scope of the article, but my comments and Rachel Banner’s contribution acknowledge that any move from the present arrangement is change. Once again it may only be a matter of the difference in the type of change we want.

You say, “In many ways the GOWA 2006 was badly botched.”
The thrust of my argument, surely, is that it is inadequate and not fit for purpose and rather proceed to Part 4, we should look at an alternative…that is, change it!

If you want my critique on the subject of independence go to:
http://www.truewalesnocampaign.org.uk/Grassroots_Comment.html
and read the article on Carwyn Jones: “Hence home, you idle creatures”
(Then scroll down a few articles to:-)
Rhodri Morgan: “Sell, sell, sell!” “Rhodri Morgan talks to Martin Shipton about the difficulties surrounding the further powers debate”
- I sure you will find me much more unreasonable.

Your final comment: “The argument against seems to be a populist anti politician one rather than one based on any need or analysis of the proper function of the National Assembly.”
I ‘m sure you are not referring directly to the article or to my responses, as most of the comments have been complimentary, even when the writer has disagreed with me. I have analytically concentrated on one function and need of the National Assembly, and that is the defect with regard to scrutiny.

At election times all politicians resort to being populists. I’m writing my manifesto just now, promising clear roads in and out of Cardiff at all times, abolition of the Brynglas Tunnels, frequent low cost fast direct buses Cardiff to Llandudno, complimentary upgrades to business class Cardiff/ Anglesey, half price super highway broadband in all rural communities, immediate funds to every local authority to repair potholes…and much, much more to come during May …Including duckhouses for everyone!
But then, that is being anti-politician, isn’t it.

Arguments that this is a slippery slope have never rung true with me, its this belief that independence could happen by stealth that I find unconvincing. We will have the level of devolution that people want. Constitutions are not fixed and for ever the same, there is always change, to pretend otherwise ignores the history of the UK an and indeed the wider world. We have seen radical changes in the UK over the years – indeed in the last 100 years we have seen one nation leave the UK, the abolition of the absolute veto of the House of Lords, devolved legislatures (the first being incidentally the Church of England!), the abolition of a devolved legislature, the doubling of the franchise, the abolition of university seats in Parliament – I could go on.

As for the size of the National Assembly being increased, this is just a scare tactic. If the referendum is won by the yes size there are no plans to increase the National Assembly. Personally I am persuaded by the arguments advanced by the Richard Commission that it should be increased in size, this is a matter of mechanics, 80 being the optimum size for proper scrutiny given our current political landscape. This is a pragmatic view. The argument against seems to be a populist anti politician one rather than one based on any need or analysis of the proper function of the National Assembly.