Trigger happy: The Assembly should vote positively for more powers
And they're off: the race to further powers for the National Assembly should begin this afternoon
THERE will be a debate in the National Assembly for Wales on the referendum this afternoon. I will speak in this debate and I will vote in favour of the motion. And I would vote in favour of a referendum on whatever date is eventually chosen.
The debate over the referendum has become overwhelming and it’s time to move on. It’s time to leave behind all those process-related issues that are so beloved of the anorak brigade and so irrelevant to the rest of us.
It’s time to think beyond this afternoon’s vote and to start to think about what this referendum can deliver for people in Wales.
It’s time to move on and time to have this debate.
I’m voting for the referendum and will be campaigning for a yes vote for two reasons. Firstly, the process we have does not give us a stable and accountable devolution settlement. And secondly because the yes vote must be far more than answering a question on a ballot paper. It has to be about changing our politics in Wales and presage far greater change in the way that Wales is governed.
My experience as an Assembly Member over the past three years has included a number of legislation committees, scrutinising both legislation and requests for legislative competence. Many, many hours of time has been spent on scrutinising both legislation and requests for competence. All too often far too much time is spent on arguing the case for legislation than actual legislating. And that can’t be right. We need a process of law-making that is transparent, understandable and simple. The present system delivers none of this.
It is true that the process, while still cumbersome and time-consuming, has improved and is still improving. The present Welsh Affairs Select Committee investigation into Wales and Whitehall is timely and will find that many of the delays in passing requests for legislative competence have been found to be within the machinery of government and not due to a lack of political will or attempts at political chicanery.
However, at the same time any requests which are perceived to be either “controversial” or “complex” do not progress easily or sufficiently quickly to allow the government to deliver on its manifesto commitments during a four-year term. Examples would be the legislation on affordable housing, environmental protection and language policy. This is a disaster for our democracy and a disaster for the credibility of devolution.
And that’s not due to politics but due to a process that cannot deliver the Holy Trinity of constitutional settlements – clarity, stability and accountability.
So far from being another step on True Wales’ nightmarish “slippery slope“, the new settlement will be more enduring and offers us the best chance yet for a solid understandable and stable devolution settlement. The prospect of Cardiff Bay and Westminster haggling over powers is a nationalists’ dream but a terrifying outlook for anyone who values the future of the United Kingdom. A successful referendum will help people across Wales not only understand better the powers which are held in either Cardiff or Westminster but will also increase accountability of politicians on both ends of the M4. The clarity that this settlement will create will ensure that Assembly Members will have no cloak to hide behind, no more excuses, and no more blaming Westminster or Whitehall.
We need to focus heavily on what this referendum can achieve for Wales. We live in exciting times. In the last 10 years, the democratic changes that we‘ve seen in Wales have gone hand-in-hand with a technological revolution that has transformed the way in which we communicate and interact with each other.
I led a debate in the Assembly nearly two years ago calling for a strengthening of local government and the use of direct democracy and technology to involve more and more people in how Wales is governed. The crisis of legitimacy that has been created by the expenses issue has made this a driving imperative. Today we may have an opportunity to involve people in designing and shaping public services in ways that would have been unthinkable and unimaginable a decade ago. And this is going to more important in the future than it has been in the past.
At the same time the economic crisis has demonstrated the strength and potential of an activist, agile and responsive government. A government that has the powers already on the statute book under the 2006 legislation will be more powerful and more able to build the prosperous and fair Wales that we all want to see. Voting “Yes” needs to be the beginning of change and not the end of it.
Anyway. That’s it for now. That’s my last word on this for about 88 days.
After all, there’s a General Election to fight. And to win.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flickr
Dr Richard Wyn Jones of the Wales Governance Centre said …
or rather … “warned that the present settlement is leading to a very powerful executive in Cardiff Bay, which is not tightly regulated. He claimed a failure on the part of AMs to scrutinise the assembly government adequately was leading to “executive dominance”.”
… Alun Davies calls for even more power, yet fails to explain where sufficient scrutiny will be found without Westminster. Having watched Assembly debates on television, I have little confidence in this institution as it is currently structured, we need a credible opposition that will call to account the Welsh Assembly Government, not the proposed greater powers for the executive with no regard for our constitution and the effect the WAG will have upon it.
The article makes reference to a slippery slope, yet our erstwhile politician brushes the reference aside as if it is without merit, I am of the considered opinion that every difference created by Cardiff Bay strengthens the Nationalist cause. The people of England and Wales are no different with very similar aspirations and needs in life. If he had called for a better working relationship with Westminster, so that the slippery slope can be consigned to history he would be a more credible voice for the people of his constituency, though I understand which constituency this might be after the next Assembly elections is up for discussion.
“I am of the considered opinion that every difference created by Cardiff Bay strengthens the Nationalist cause.”
With respect, J. Tyler, I couldn’t disagree more. Devolution is about bring more responsible government closer to the people. I know you and I have a philosophical difference in what that means. And I respect that.
It seems to me that Dr. Richard Wyn Jones doesn’t have faith with the Tori opposition in the Assembly to hold any Welsh Government into account. Does this not reflect more on the state of the Welsh Conservative party? It seems to me his critique should be directed to them. However, I suspect that members of the Welsh Conservative party also view more authority vested with the assembly as a desirable political goal.
Mr Llewellyn, where you wrote …
Does this not reflect more on the state of the Welsh Conservative party?
… it tends to brush past the fears of Dr Richard Wyn Jones where he uses the expression … not tightly regulated. He claimed a failure on the part of AMs to scrutinise the assembly government …
Putting aside idealogical differences, it is doubtful that Dr RWJ would have expressed himself as he did without there being very real issues to address. It seems to me there is a headlong rush towards additional powers without having created a strong structural framework for governance.
“I am of the considered opinion that every difference created by Cardiff Bay strengthens the Nationalist cause. ”
That, Mr Tyler is an extraordinary statement. it implies, sorry pretty baldly states, that every policy difference between Wales and England is a concession to Nationalism. That would have been news to Peter Walker when conducting his industrial policy in the late 1980s or Peter Hain when he declined to introduce the literacy hour to Wales in 1997 to give just two reasonably substantial examples from Welsh Office days.
Both the Welsh Office and more substantially the Assembly have been instruments, in the eyes of their founders, to try and ensure Wales gets appropriate policies to meet its distinctive needs within the context.
of the Union.
The logic of your position, that we should have no differences with England is not only no Assembly but no Welsh Office, I could hardly think of a better way of boosting the “Nationalist” vote than direct rule from London; really a considered view?
Alun and the rest of the Yes campaign will have to do allot better than this. Talk about uninspiring. No one out in the real world will vote yes to tidy up a system introduced less than 3 years ago, because the same politicians that wanted and introduced it know find it a little unwieldy.
I cannot comment on Alun’s second reason because it is meaningless gibberish. What people will want to no is what is it you will do for health, education and transport that you cannot do now.
Mr Llwyd, you are disingenuous when you cherry pick a sentence without adding the explanatory sentence that followed … The people of England and Wales are no different with very similar aspirations and needs in life.
You might like to explain in which way a person living in Swansea has different needs to an identical person living in Rugby; I see no differences, yet if you create a law that restricts the resident of Swansea from purchasing his or her council house you create a very real difference of opportunity.
The drop-out rate for Welsh Universities are the highest in the United Kingdom, today’s Times, is this a reflection on our WAG underfunded education, how can we trust WAG politicians who decided that Welsh children needed £500 every year less than the national average, it is depressing…
… and you want more powers !
Re: Mr Tyler’s point about about Welsh pupils getting £500 less per year spent on their education compared to English pupils.
Mr Tyler blames ‘WAG politicians’. In reality he should be blaming the WAG, or Welsh Assembly Government, which presently is a coalition between Labour & Plaid, and not all the ‘politicians’ in the Assembly.
The ‘failure’ on this matter by the present government of the Welsh Assembly is not an argument against giving more powers to the Assembly as an institution, as illustrated by Mr Tyler’s last remark, but it is an argument to vote in the next Assembly elections for a party that will undertake to bring parity to spending on Welsh pupils as compared to England.
After all, poor policy decisions by the British government seldom lead to calls to do away with Westminster (except perhaps by the blogger Guido Fawkes).
Time & time again opponents of Welsh devolution mistake the institution of the Assembly with the party/parties in power.
It makes for a very poor standard of debate, whether the mistake is sincere or deliberate.
I’m watching the debate live on Democracy Live! Woot!
53 vote in favor! Great comments all around by the AMs!
Now, now, Michael, its not nice to say of Alun’s article that it “meaningless gibberish” because we all know he has gained a reputation for public speaking. It’s just that what he has written in this instance is meaningless. It’s not because he doesn’t have ability, he has that, it just that he hasn’t understood that the same powers under Part 3 are the same powers under Part 4 and that whether the Assembly operates under Part 3 or 4 Wales is making its own laws. The access to those powers either by request or by demand make no difference to what is done with them. And that’s the problem…not a lot. And, on the record of the past, under Part 4 not much will change either.
Lots, much of what Alun says has merit. In fact it has similarities with his bete noir True Wales. Everyone wants change from what we have, only the changes have differences. The ‘”nightmarish “slippery slope”‘ is not of True Wales making but of the nationalists in Plaid and the Labour party who in the 2007 One Wales Agreement decided on the forthcoming referendum before the GOWA 2006 even had a chance to get going. The intensity of this demand for a referendum, the step in the process of independence, was evident when Rhodri and others signed a document that delayed the referendum. Plaid frothed at the mouth and suggested they’d pull out of WAG. It is this unreasonableness that makes not only True Wales, but many others deeply concerned about an avowed separatist nationalist group having a place in government. Until Labour puts Plaid at arms length, and out of WAG, people will be suspicious of the intention and purpose of the referendum. Until there is a steepsided hill between Labour and Plaid the valuable radical opinion of people such as Alun’s will be regarded as a Trojan horse.
88 days is either a long holiday or Alun has the confidence of Gordon and knows something we don’t.
Len,
Might I suggest that your hysterical critique of Plaid does your already shaky arguments a disservice?
One Wales is a coalition of Wales’ two biggest parties in that election, it was not a coup, it was democratically elected both at the ballot box and within both party structures. Any ‘unreasonablness’ by Plaid is based on the wholly reasonable demand for an agreed programme of Government to be carried out in accordance with the deal agreed.
At the end of day – we either vote for the widely viewed failure of the LCO system, or we vote to give Wales primary law making powers. It is not some nationalist take over, where as soon as a referendum is won there will be some millenium bug style disaster.
Don’t often comment on politics online any more, but as an observer of this site, I find your statements on Plaid a bit silly.
Mr. Jones, when I referred to WAG politicians I was being very specific and very accurate, I was referring to those politicians that make up the Welsh Assembly Government, the decision to budget education in Wales at a figure £500 below the UK average was not taken by political spectres, it was taken by the elected politicians that make up government, Labour and Plaid Cymru equally. Interestingly no Assembly politician raised any issues relating to education funding, this relates to Dr Richard Wyn Jones when he points out the failure to “scrutinise the assembly government adequately”.
I wonder what the public would have said if they had realised at the time that “WAG politicians” had decided to under-fund their children’s education. This particular aspect of WAG activity emphasises the need for scrutiny of the highest order, and unmitigated disaster for our children as a result of unregulated government, Dr Richard Wyn Jones labelled it as “executive dominance”.
Poor decision making by the British government is frequently followed by calls for resignations by many including the blogger Guido Fawkes, but here we are privileged to be able to comment with very little moderation on Welsh politics, hence the title “Wales Home”.
“One Wales is a coalition of Wales’ two biggest parties in that election, it was not a coup, it was democratically elected both at the ballot box”
In point of fact, only one party submitted itself to the electorate on the basis of holding a referendum of the type that has been triggered today, and that party got a little over one fifth of the vote only.
Whichever side of the argument people are on, it has to be said that what happened today shows the real limitations of “consensus politics.” How have we reached a stage where the views of almost half the electorate go completely unrepresented, by elected representatives?
The term Cardiff Bay bubble has never been more apt. Ask yourself the question, how easy would it have been for an AM to have disagreed with the consensus? How quickly would the cosy back slapping have given way to hostility and hysteria?
An independent observer seeing politicians behaving like this especially in the current climate is surely unlikely to vote yes.
Michael,
I’m just a working class English speaking Cardiff boy from Ely, I’m also Plaid. I knew this nonsense would begin as soon as the vote happened and i would warn voters who’ve yet to decide that True Wales has yet to present even one sound argument (even from the dodgy slippery slope theory), let alone their alternative vision.
True Wales supporters also believe there’s a great swathe of ‘no’ voters out there, as well as the concept that folk who didn’t vote are all somehow in their camp. Happily you and your ilk are way out of touch as all respected indicators point to a 2-1 majority in favour.
I want total independence, never said any different, ever. That’s why I vote Plaid.
While people from all parts of these islands want consensus politics in these times you oppose it. I’ve even heard ‘Stonemason’, Jack Wilkinson and others demanding that 60% of the electorate should vote yes for it to be considered a ‘yes vote’
I’m sorry, but that’s not democracy. It’s electoral manipulation to secure a vote that suits false Wales.
In conclusion, what I and my party want will eventually come down to a free vote of the Welsh electorate some time in the future. It has nothing to do with a referendum on independence and everything do do with a Welsh parliament making our own decisions on Welsh issues.
How often is Michaels’ observation true …
“… how easy would it have been for an AM to have disagreed with the consensus?”
… such opposition would have been labelled anti-Welsh, can you imagine the effect upon the AMs political group, vilified because he or she saw something the balance of AMs failed to recognise or wished to debate in chamber. It is an aspect of Assembly life I personally find foul, the suppression of adequate debate in public in the chamber.
The vote yesterday, was such an event, a deal done without a public record.
Mr Jones, it was myself that proposed the 60% of the electorate as a minimum to allow a constitutional referendum to be accepted, it was the minimum at the Assembly yesterday, yet I hear no objection from yourself. The last referendum won through on the nod from a majority of a scant few thousand on a turnout so low that it couldn’t be considered the democratic will of the public. It is not manipulation, it is a call for democracy on those few issues that would be very difficult to undo.
But let’s not worry, Mr Jones. What politician is going to make his or her task difficult, or indeed democratic post election; I refer you to the words of Dr Richard Wyn Jones above, I would suggest the people of Wales have been looking into the Nietzsche abyss these past years, with no handrail to prevent a fall into a minority vision.
“at a figure £500 below the UK average ”
The UK average or the English average? Have you taken into account Scottish and Northern Irish spending levels?
“The intensity of this demand for a referendum, the step in the process of independence, was evident when Rhodri and others signed a document that delayed the referendum. Plaid frothed at the mouth and suggested they’d pull out of WAG. It is this unreasonableness that makes not only True Wales, but many others deeply concerned about an avowed separatist nationalist group having a place in government. Until Labour puts Plaid at arms length, and out of WAG, people will be suspicious of the intention and purpose of the referendum. Until there is a steepsided hill between Labour and Plaid the valuable radical opinion of people such as Alun’s will be regarded as a Trojan horse.”
So True Wales’ critique has gone from opposing the All Wales Convention, backing the Convention, and now basing it’s opposition to a ‘yes’ vote on Plaid happening to be in government.
Ridiculous.
I am not certain your observation adds to the discussion Hendra, education underspending by the WAG is only one example of how the executive in Wales took a decision with the approval of all other AMs, including those of the Conservative party that I vote for, without adequate oversight, a decision that directed funds away from the children of people living in Wales, which in effect created a generation of children having a less than fair advantage in the scholastic stakes.
Would this disgraceful funding gap have occurred if parents had been given the option to disadvantage their offspring at the ballot box, or if the media had made the situation clear, I think this present government would have been hounded by people of all political persuasions. Unfortunately the Welsh Assembly Government is not being held to account, this is a fatal flaw in Welsh Democracy.
It is not a question of political parties, the situation would have been similar no matter who had the chair at Cardiff Bay. The Welsh Assembly Government has a fundamental flaw that should be remedied as soon as possible, preferably before the next Assembly elections, it needs oversight of its working that is crystal clear to the public.
I asked Peter Black some time ago if he was prepared to be Mr Awkward in the Assembly, he didn’t reply, in fact I was very unfair, for Mr Black to become Mr Awkward he would awarded the anti-Welsh bonnet rather than a coronet for democracy such is Welsh politics today, it’s a shame as so many radicals of all persuasions originated in Wales, democracy needs the radical.
True Wales does have a tendency to ignore the fact that there are two other devolved territories in the UK. I noticed the other day that Len Gibbs referred to Welsh policing being separated from UK policing. Rather ironic in view of recent events.
Thanks for all the comments. I will respond to a couple of the themes of the debate rather than each point raised by individual contributers.
1. The issue of the power of the executive in Cardiff is an important one. Richard Wyn Jones is right in his concerns and I agree with him. That is why the new powers will strengthen the legislature and not the executive. The new powers contained in the 2006 legislation will accrue to the Assembly and not to the Assembly Government. It has been a fundamental part of the devolution process in other parts of the UK that where executive power is devolved to ministers in devolved institutions then the appropriate legislative powers also devolved to the institutions themselves. In this way the new powers would bring Wales into line with the other devolved settlements and would help balance the UK constitution. This would provide and create a stable and more accountable form of government. It would also enhance the power of the legislature vis-a-vis the executive.
2. One of the issues that has been raised in this debate is the relationship between Wales and Whitehall (or Westminister). Actually the relationship with Westminster has been largely good. There have been some very well described problems with Whitehall and these are being addressed by the Welsh Affairs Select Cttee at present. I welcome this inquiry and look forward to their report. The LCO system however relies too heavily upon goodwill rather than a structured and clear assignment of different roles and responsibilities. Where the Assembly has sought powers on areas that are considered to be “complex” or “controversial” there have been problems – and this extends from mental health legislation to environmental protection and to affordable housing – as well as the more predictably difficult language legislation. Had the LCO system operated as outlined in the white paper and as was explained to Parliament during the passage of the 2006 Act then I probably would not be so anxious to move to a referendum at this time. However it has not operated in this way. LCOs have been narrowly-drawn with lists of exceptions sometimes longer than the list of powers to be transferred and finally LCOs setting out how the Assembly may legislate and a then wholly new and novel power of veto for the Secretary of State over Assembly legislation! That does not provide for stable government.
3. The referendum itself is a Labour referendum. It was described in the 2005 general election manifesto and legislated for by a Labour Government. It is quite tightly-drawn and highly specific. If the answer is “Yes” then it will deliver powers that are already on the statute book. No further powers will (or could) be transferred without primary legislation at Westminister.
4. Finally – the spending gap on education. This is something that I have been working on outside of the debate on the referendum. The actual gap in spending betwen governments in Wales and England is about £15. In Wales’ favour. When you look at education spending per head of population you will see that Wales (WAG) spends £830 and England spends about £815 (outside London which provides the best basis for comparison). However when this is translated into spend per pupil in the classroom then there is a real gap of around £326. The £500 figure includes London which does not provide a good or fair basis for comparison. So the issue here is not so much funding but of funding structures and channels – and that’s why I welcomed Leighton Andrews’ review of education spending last month. Clearly if the review finds that structures or funding channels in Wales need to be changed to ensure that more funding reaches reaches the classroom then that is far more easily achievable if the Assembly possessed Part 4 powers. At present any legislation would probably have to wait until after next year’s Assembly elections. And that is an argument for a “Yes” vote.
I hope these additional points answers some of the issues raised.
Alun writes:
“The issue of the power of the executive in Cardiff is an important one. Richard Wyn Jones is right in his concerns and I agree with him. That is why the new powers will strengthen the legislature and not the executive. The new powers contained in the 2006 legislation will accrue to the Assembly and not to the Assembly Government. It has been a fundamental part of the devolution process in other parts of the UK that where executive power is devolved to ministers in devolved institutions then the appropriate legislative powers also devolved to the institutions themselves. In this way the new powers would bring Wales into line with the other devolved settlements and would help balance the UK constitution. This would provide and create a stable and more accountable form of government. It would also enhance the power of the legislature vis-a-vis the executive.”
I agree entirely and wrote last week:
“…after a successful referendum, all that would mean is that the legislative powers of the Assembly match the potential boundaries of the executive powers of the Welsh Assembly Government. (If you’re still following me, these boundaries are set out here in Schedule 7 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, which define such legislative boundaries post referendum).”
This is not an easy concept to advance to the electorate, and I don’t pretend it is, but it is a factually correct one.
Mr Davies provides reassuring words, quite different to the Plaid coalition partnership that has consistently referred during TV interviews to the next stage, post a successful “Yes” vote, as merely a “tidying up process”.
With regard to Mr Davies’ last paragraph, I wonder why you were not dragged kicking and screaming from the debating chamber while the WAG cut education spending, I’m sure I would have been …. unless of course the reality was hidden from you/me. I am not convinced issues of oversight and scrutiny would be addressed by simply stepping to the next stage, it is time for public proposals for oversight that would be implemented as soon as possible.
Today Rhodri Morgan said on TV, he saw the last three years as an apprenticeship and it was time to move to the next stage.
Well Rhodri Morgan, if you visit Wales Home, traditionally, following a 5 to 7 year apprenticeship (depending on the trade) there would be an extensive period as an improver, an improver would be supervised much as an apprentice but with a hand that became lighter as each year went by. The Assembly might be an improver in a couple of years, but certainly not the craftsman/craftswoman with whom to trust the family jewels just yet.
Though I disagree with Alun Davies’ point about this being a Labour referendum, it is excellent that an elected Assembly Member has seen it fit to come back online and respond personally to comments about his own article. Where is the Cardiff Bay elite we keep hearing about?
I’d like to thank Alun Davies for his response as well, particularly as regards the matter of education spending per pupil in Wales. I, along with many, look forward to seeing the results of Leighton Andrews’s review.
Diolch eto Alun
I watched the debate on Democracy Live, and Alun Davies sounded very empassioned on the issue of devolved powers, and his fustration on the LCO processes came through clearly.
I thought he did a great job.
John Tyler you write, “Today Rhodri Morgan said on TV, he saw the last three years as an apprenticeship and it was time to move to the next stage.”
As I was sitting next to him at the time he said it, I was well aware that he was deliberately making a distinction between his views and Leanne Wood’s ‘tidying-up process’. Despite the fact that I don’t think that three years is a sufficient apprentiship he was removing himself from the banal of tidying-up and I thought that was encouraging. The GOWA 2006 does contain the provision of moving from Part 3 to Part 4 and as such, constiutionalists can’t object to its consideration. If we didn’t have the Plaid objective that moving to Part 4 was a step in the process to independence there would be far less to object in the discussion. But I think that three years is insufficient. Peter Hain gave an undertaking to Parliament in 2006 that no further change in devolution would take place before 2011. It is not unreasonable to interpret this as, no further consideration would be given before 2011. Instead Plaid have used the phraseology as not making a change until 2011. The 2011 date to begin consideration gives a longer and necessary timescale of about seven to eight years which is much more reasonable.
In the meantime the AWC has reported and pointed out that GOWA 2006 has a flaw that needs addressing and that is the issue of scrutiny. It is encouraging that since, at the invitation of the editors, I raised the issue on this site at the beginnning of the year, the subject has had more consideration. The problems with Part 3 are not as large as some make out. Rhodri said this during the discussion. It is possible for the Assembly to function under Part 3 and Peter Hain and Hywel Frances say it is working as intended and working well.
Given the flaw, and the time frame of Peter Hain and also the need for experience, it is possible to take more time for a wider discussion as to the exact nature of the type of devolution we want in Wales. True Wales wants a less centralised devolution and Adam Higgett has also made the point as has Peter Black under his pseudonym. There is a broader basis for a wider based devolution than might have appeared the case in Nov when the AWC reported.
There is no crisis that needs to be addressed now about ‘The laws about Wales that only concern Wales should be made in Wales’ as, if I am correct, the Assembly has already made laws in Wales that only apply to Wales, and will continue to do so under Part 3.
We need to remove the ogre of independence from the agenda and while the Assembly continue to make laws that only concern Wales, we can have a meaning ful discussion, perhaps in a Constitutional Convention, about a better format of devolution for Wales. We’ve got the time…we’re nowhere near Rwanda yet.
The ogre of independence is not on the agenda Len. It is not mentioned in the Government of Wales Act, which is what we’d be voting on.
An independence referendum would be required for Wales to see independence.
You have already recognised this in a comment on this website, that the referendum is NOT about independence.
Let’s not let that stop you though. I’m sure you’ll be campaigning on ‘they’re going to give us 20 extra AMs’ or ‘it’s going to cost us £8billion’ or whatever lies your group comes up with. I’m sorry for not appearing charitable about this but there’s only so far I can tolerate a ‘no’ position when it evades facts.
” we can have a meaning ful discussion, perhaps in a Constitutional Convention, about a better format of devolution for Wales”
For goodness sake man we’ve just had one of those and your group lambasted it throughout (anyone remember the “tax payer funded yes campaign” slur?) ! Not only did your group lambast it but you accused the British diplomat Sir Emyr Jones Parry of being a closet nationalist ! Before you performed a Damascene conversion and now claiming it was a good thing and upholding its recommendations.
There is a very good spirit of debate and friendliness at Wales Home which I am loathe to disturb, but there is no way you are going to get an easy ride on this.
“True Wales wants a less centralised devolution and Adam Higgett has also made the point as has Peter Black under his pseudonym. There is a broader basis for a wider based devolution than might have appeared the case in Nov when the AWC reported.”
Don’t flatter yourself. You didn’t say a peep about decentralising devolution when your group first formed. You base your desire for decentralisation on the predication that our legislature is a ‘Cardiff Bay elite’ (words you have used on this website). Something that many commentators on this site have proven to be completely unfounded.
Illtyd Luke
Final words for this round…
“You have already recognised this in a comment on this website, that the referendum is NOT about independence. ” I most certainly have! My comment above is that the way to ensure that it is not, is for Plaid to recind the political objective. The difficulty we have is that Plaid regard devolution, and the referendum, as step towards independence. Whilst this is their strategy independence is unfortunately an issue.
‘they’re going to give us 20 extra AMs’ or ‘it’s going to cost us £8billion’ I don’t t recall making the point but Tomorrow’s Wales have and they want to implement the Richard’s Commission in full, and that includes 20 extra AMs. True Wales is clear about its position, we do not want more AMs or MPs.
“a Constitutional Convention”…”we’ve just had one of those”. Well we haven’t. The AWC wasn’t a Constitutional Convention.
“diplomat Sir Emyr Jones Parry of being a closet nationalist ” I can’t remember that one either. I sat beside Sir Emyr when a caller to the radio programme more or less accused him of being a nationalist. His answer was delightful. He listed the elements of the charges and then said that if that made someone to be a nationalist, he was proud to be one…and I would.
“now claiming it was a good thing and upholding its recommendations” The article I wrote about the AWC, and published on this site, had the headline that a ‘NO’ campaigner had praise for it. I’ve never written anything that can be remotely described a critical of the Report or those who were involved in it. Perhaps you’d like to read the article again and see the remarks that I did make. I have a criticism of the brief issued to the Convention, and as the Convention stuck to the scope of the brief, I have no criticism of the Report itself. There are three areas that are of considerable importance and without the report we’d have a debate with fewer harder third party facts.
“a peep about decentralising devolution when your group first formed”
True Wales was formed at the inception of the AWC and for the first few months the opportunities of making public comments was limited. True Wales would have folded if the AWC Report advised WAG that a ‘yes’ referendum vote was impossible to win. When we had the get-out answer of “You can win, but it can’t be guaranteed” and there was a strong likelihood of a referendum, True Wales issued the “True Devolution Charter”.
‘Cardiff Bay elite’
True Wales are not the only ones who hold this opinion. It’s just that we are willing to say it.
…Final words for this round.
I’ll withdraw to my corner then. Have fun with David Davies MP and any other dodgy right-wingers that your side will have to deal with. In the meantime ill get training on the new Calzaghe punchbag, a product (I kid you not) developed with a grant from our very own Adrian, Ieuan Wyn Jones.
The setting up of the Welsh Assembly was purely a democratisation of the Welsh Office.
It has developed slowly and now is shackled by the whole LCO process.
The Welsh MP’s aren’t too keen – turkeys voting for Christmas? Isn’t Westminster wonderful!