Mr Gibbs: If there was now a series of polls, showing a massive decline in both support for devolution and a clear ‘No’ vote in the referendum, True Wales would come and say that “As we all know, polls are notoriously unreliable, so best not look too much into them.”

*stop laughing over there*

I only ask because on the True Wales website there is a regular update of how True Wales have conducted polls in various towns. Laughably, they never provide any methodology or even the amount of people surveyed. Now, excuse us all while we be slightly suspicious of those polls held by Rachel Banner with a clipboard, particularly while you dismiss professional polling evidence.

Your point on Adam Price is always laughable. Can we just confirm that there are members of True Wales who want abolishment of the Assembly? Yes? Ok. So how are we to trust your view that ‘True Wales is not calling for an end to the Assembly’? You are using two standards. Personally a more credible debate is for those on both sides to have detente on the matter of independence/abolishment. This referendum is not about independence, it is not about abolishment, this despite there being those of that persuasion on both sides.

I am sure True Wales would rather see Adam Price as Prime Minister of the Socialist Republic of Wales than admit that though.

Len argues- “It is this acceleration of the referendum that makes it a political act within the overall strategy of autonomy within the EU. IWJ has gone on record saying that he wants Part 4 in place and is not so concerned whether it can be used immediately. Other Plaid people have said much the same. The mantra is that devolution is a process to independence. Part 4 is a step in that process.”

I don’t buy the picture you’re painting which is essentially of Plaid holding the nation to political ransom in an effort to create accelerated devolution leading to independence- it flatters Plaid’s political influence. Plaid and the long-term goal of independence are just one part of what is a huge mosaic. I see it as a much broader process of making devolution more effective which has the support of Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative AMs, third sector organisations, trade unions and some businesspeople as well. I find David Melding’s argument that devolution makes the Union work better to have just as much legitimacy as the independence argument does. I do pretty much accept that you might be able to use the independence point as a tactic to create confusion, as you’re quite right that nationalists see this as part of a longer process.

“I had expected someone to ask what are the five areas? If you could hack into my computer it is held on file and the evidence with it and will be deployed when we get into campaign mode.”

No Len, you ignored the evidence about the Assembly becoming more popular and hold a position that opposes measurable evidence. Now i’ve had the good grace above to recognise that independence does come into play if you see devolution as an ongoing process, will you have the good grace to recognise that your idea that ‘more people view the Assembly with suspicion” since Plaid came in, is not true?

Your point about opinion polls is obfuscation. Political scientists would recognise that consistent polling, by different companies, is showing a growth in support for devolution and for attaining further or better powers. I agree this doesn’t mean a ‘Yes’ vote will win at all, as you and Peter Hain remind us on the 1997 polls. But it does demonstrate an increased acceptance of the Assembly and of devolution, including in the past few years since the One Wales agreement came into place.

We’re seeing some major holes in True Wales’ case very early on in the debate. As for Scotland, it seems we can look alot closer to home to find some jokes of our own.

“Saying this referendum is being proposed because of autonomy within the EU is barking mad.”
There is nothing to object to in you saying that it is in the GOWA masterminded by Labour, but the provision was not expected to be taken up at least before 2011. The fact is that a referendum was a condition of the One Wales Agreement. The Act had hardly come into existence and not had time to operate well/bad/indifferently when Plaid forced a commitment to a referendum in 2010. It is this acceleration of the referendum that makes it a political act within the overall strategy of autonomy within the EU. IWJ has gone on record saying that he wants Part 4 in place and is not so concerned whether it can be used immediately. Other Plaid people have said much the same. The mantra is that devolution is a process to independence. Part 4 is a step in that process.

“So far, True Wales’ arguments have completely ignored the evidence”
I had expected someone to ask what are the five areas? If you could hack into my computer it is held on file and the evidence with it and will be deployed when we get into campaign mode.

“I quoted some reasonable evidence (opinion polls) at you about the Assembly moderately increasing in popularity, yet you ignored the point”
I didn’t respond to the point because my experience from commercial life when I was a marketing director is that research polls are notoriously unreliable. They depend on a variety of factors and one of them is the question(s) asked. I offered True Wales to design a perfectly respectable set of poll questions that would have given us any answer we wanted. You’ll be delighted to know the offer was turned down. Pools indicate they don’t prove. Peter Hain reminds us that the 1971 and 1997 polls gave devolution a 10% lead and yet in 1971 it was dramatically wrong and the 1997 only just in majority. I think it is to early to place any reliance on current polling, even if it was in the favour of no.

“I quoted some evidence on this site to Rachel Banner.”
Rachel takes a different view than me on how to engage with the yes supporters. We don’t disagree on what we do but we prefer different routes. I am not in a position to answer for Rachel. If you ask me a question, if I can answer it or feel that it deserves an answer I’ll try to provide one.

“a joke about Edinburgh”
Sometimes I use a joke to make light of a topic that is not central to the overall discussion. The comment was based on an old joke heard in Scotland, “What trains have the most passengers, those from Edinburgh to Glasgow or Glasgow to Edinburgh?” The answer depends entirely on whether you live in Glasgow or Edinburgh.
So here is a goodnight joke. Which trains have the most passengers, those travelling from Wales to Scotland to enjoy full devolution or those from Scotland to Wales with people escaping from it. Go on laugh, its only devolution.

The forthcoming referendum is not about independence. But if nationalists did not believe it moved things closer to the point where independence was attainable, they would not support a “yes” vote in it. To pretend otherwise is, frankly, to insult the intelligence of anyone who thinks about the subject for more than a few seconds at a time.

Adam Price does not even sit in the National Assembly, and the referendum is also Labour’s aim not just Plaid’s aim, and Labour is very much a Unionist party. Saying this referendum is being proposed because of autonomy within the EU is barking mad. It’s being proposed because it is in Peter Hain’s Government of Wales Act, an act of Parliament that keeps Wales inside the UK and does not lay down any provision for Wales to exit the UK.

“As a former systems analysts I have identified five areas that require debate. I assure you that the thrust of our argument will be evidenced based.”

So far, True Wales’ arguments have completely ignored the evidence. You have not yet offered anything evidence based and that to me is a real shame because you are clearly ready to engage with the other sides and make your points sensibly.

I quoted some reasonable evidence (opinion polls) at you about the Assembly moderately increasing in popularity, yet you ignored the point and instead believe that people have ‘become more suspicious’ of the Assembly because of Plaid. A position that contradicts measurable evidence.

Similarly, I quoted some evidence on this site to Rachel Banner. She argued that the Assembly prioritises constitutional affairs and nation building over public services. I produced the obvious figures that completely refute that ignorant argument (the Assembly/Welsh Government unsurprisingly spends billions on public services compared to millions on constitutional and nation building projects), yet there was no reply from her or no counter-argument. If your side bases your points and arguments on facts and statistics, that would be progress.

“I can introduce you to a few! In fact I know so many that I looked up the times of the trains to Edinburgh. They leave Swansea five minutes to the hour every hour all day and take seven and a half hours. Bye!”

I very much doubt you could introduce me to any, Len. I actually am a nationalist who is closely interested in politics, following every comment and press statement they make online and attending meetings as often as you do. Why would Welsh nationalists want to fight a referendum based on independence, when independence (as you would certainly agree) has low support at the moment? What would be the logic in that? Instead of making a joke about Edinburgh, how about name some Plaid officials or politicians or even activists who have made public statements about fighting this referendum on the basis of independence? I doubt you’ll be able to find many.

Daran,
I see you have joined the Devious Club!
I read the list of points you directed me to and I had forgotten how good they are. Thanks for reminding me.
# spending priorities that reflect the needs of all the people;
# restoration of a cohesive, tolerant society;
# no increase in the current number of AMs and MPs;
# keeping the Secretary of State for Wales;
# the maintenance of a strong position within the United Kingdom;
# that any application to draw down Legislative Competence Orders from the United Kingdom Government should reflect the wishes of the majority of the Welsh people.

“decentralisation” Yes, I understood that but in reviewing and in all probability revising, the logical step in devolution is to deploy decision making to the lowest point.

“believe your side will be as clear and honest in the arguments it makes.”
Definitely! True Wales because it is a cross party group has to have an agreed position and this has been defined in Terms of Reference. The position is simple. If you agree with it, you can join, if you don’t you can’t. This doesn’t stop anyone from saying what they like as a private individual but if they speak, as I do on occasions, on behalf of True Wales I am mandated. Generally you can take the view that unless I write on this site in a True Wales capacity everything else is in my private capacity. On Friday I am mandated to represent True Wales at the Lib Dem meeting in Swansea. What I say there will be the True Wales view. In these postings the comments are my own. But there isn’t much difference except here I am willing to expand ideas, and I think from the comments made, they have appeared reasonable and acceptable. And I may add, I have found many of the points made in other postings equally useful and acceptable.

“the True Wales campaign that is bringing independence into it, not Helen Mary Jones,” Rachel is rather taken with the slippery slope because it is the stated intention expressed by Plaid supporters. It cannot be ignored. I have a more pragmatic approach. The statistics are against independence. But we have to be aware of the background of the reason why the referendum is being proposed. A step in the process to autonomy within the EU by 2030 – Adam Price.

“time True Wales started living by your words”
One of the problems with the progress of the referendum is that we have ill-defined periods of time in between events. The target isn’t actually obvious and is lost in the uncertainty of the unknown. As the issues become clearer the focus of campaigning will sharpen. It already has since November and will be even clearer next week. As a former systems analysts I have identified five areas that require debate. I assure you that the thrust of our argument will be evidenced based.

Lee: “a No vote will be a damaging reverse in the devolution process”
It has that potential and the editorial in the Western Mail painted a horror scenario that True Wales will deliver on Wales if it were to win a no vote. This is, however, to miss the point. True Wales – and this is what has started this particular thread – “isn’t saying no to devolution, or for that matter to the assembly”. My posting in reply to the Western Mail was “a no vote will be bad news for Carwyn, worse news for Ieuan and good news for Wales.” Devolution isn’t going to go away, it will just get better!

John Tyler: Nice to hear a companionable voice. I thought everyone had emigrated to Patagonia! – Nice place if you haven’t been there.

Illtyd Luke: I have made a reply to independence in a paragraph above.
“I’d like to think I know a fair few nationalists, and not one of them think this referendum is even about Scottish Style powers, let alone independence!”
I can introduce you to a few! In fact I know so many that I looked up the times of the trains to Edinburgh. They leave Swansea five minutes to the hour every hour all day and take seven and a half hours. Bye!

Completely correct. True Wales should therefore drop the independence scaremongering and actually campaign on what is on offer.

“So can I also be mischevious Daran, are you going to tell those who seek independence that the referendum isn’t about independence? Perhaps they too will go to another group that is part of the “consensus” around independence? Touche”

I’d like to think I know a fair few nationalists, and not one of them think this referendum is even about Scottish Style powers, let alone independence!

Of course I am biased in favour of the “No” vote, I am blind to the alluded differences that require unique laws either side of Offa’s Dyke, whilst sighted to the need for local spending priorities. I see a need to structure government in Wales so that it sits comfortably and cooperatively with the structures in Westminster.

I notice there is no support for Daran’s depoliticised commission, no support for better governance, David Cameron would be supportive I am sure.