Syniadau :: The Blog

A surge in support for independence

2012-01-27T12:35:00.002Z

I've just seen a report that the percentage in favour of independence in Catalunya has surged by more than 8% to 53.6%. The official Baròmetre d’Opinió Política is published every quarter, and the figures for the previous quarter were 45.4% in favour of independence with 24.7% against. I'll link to the full figures when they're available.

There does seem to be a strange contrast between Catalunya and Scotland. The Scottish government is pressing ahead with a referendum on independence even though the opinion polls currently show that only a minority favour it. But the Catalan government is not pressing for any move towards independence from Spain, even though the polls are consistently showing a large margin in favour of it. Odd, isn't it?

When do we get our independence referendum?

2012-01-25T14:49:00.002Z

Elin Jones has just been reported by the BBC as saying:

"There is a debate happening now in Wales, England and Scotland now about the future of the UK constitution - I want to see Plaid Cymru engaged fully in the debate in order to lead us to becoming a successful independent nation.

"I'm clearly of the view that two consecutive victories for Plaid Cymru, just as with the SNP in Scotland, could trigger a referendum for independence in Wales."

It is the first time a leading Plaid figure has suggested a referendum could take place within the next decade.

BBC, 25 January 2011

Let's start with the positives. First, it's right to acknowledge that Elin has consistently taken a stand in favour of independence for Wales, that puts her head and shoulders above two of the other leadership candidates. Second, 2020 is certainly an improvement on her previous suggestion that we should aim to be independent before 2036. That is the sort of date that means nothing in practical terms because it is much too far away.

But I don't think she should have put it in the way she now has. It is definitely not necessary for Plaid Cymru to win two consecutive elections before we have the right to call an independence referendum. We just need to look to Scotland to see that. The SNP would have had a referendum on independence before 2011 if there had been a majority in the Scottish Parliament willing to pass a referendum bill in the 2007-2011 term. The only reason it didn't happen was because the SNP (together with the Greens and Margo MacDonald) didn't have a majority, and the three unionist parties would have voted it down.

The same is true in Wales. We will have a referendum on independence when a majority of AMs in the Senedd is prepared to vote for it. Nor will all those that vote for it have to be Plaid Cymru AMs, for there might well come a time when other parties are convinced that independence is in the best interests of Wales. But in practical terms, getting an independence referendum is more likely to happen when we elect a Plaid Cymru government.

I couldn't agree more with the idea of setting out a route map towards independence. We need to do this. Every country needs to have a framework of fundamental structures and institutions in place in order to safeguard the wellbeing, prosperity and security of its people. Wales does have some of these and with the progress of devolution is gaining more, but we are some way from having all of them. Every step we can take now will make the final step to independence that much smaller and therefore that much easier.

But we must also bear in mind that other events might bring us to the point where we are faced with making a decision much sooner. Events such as Scotland becoming independent, a wave of other countries in Europe becoming independent (Catalunya, Euskadi and Flanders, for example) or a reunited Ireland might mean that we have to make a choice between independence or being part of Greater England before we've built the framework of structures and institutions we need. That's not an insuperable problem ... we'll just have to build them after we've become independent instead.

So although we should work out a step-by-step route map and put dates against each step for planning purposes, we should not rule out becoming independent much sooner. The only criticism I have of what Elin has now said is that it seems to rule this out. I'm sure that is not what she intended, but those who are opposed to our independence are going to interpret it that way.

Missing the bigger picture

2012-01-24T18:32:00.001Z

I must admit to being mystified by the way that the findings of the IPPR survey into English attitudes to devolution have been reported in Wales. The BBC Wales story has this headline:

IPPR report: More English think devolution and Welsh Assembly harmful

And then quoted these figures:

•  31% of people thought the Welsh Assembly had a negative impact on how Britain was governed, compared to 11% in 2007.

•  Those who thought devolution to Wales had made no difference fell to 24% from a high of 66% in 2003.

•  About a quarter (26%) thought Wales got more than its fair share of UK public spending, with slightly more (28%) saying it got "pretty much" its fair share.

•  Only 7% thought England got its fair share, while 40% thought it got less than it deserved.

These figures are indeed taken from the report, which is fine. The problem is that the BBC's story only mentions Wales, saying nothing about Scotland and Northern Ireland.

If we look at the report itself, we can see that the first two figures sets of figures are almost exactly the same for Scotland's Parliament as for our National Assembly. Put in the same format, they are:

• 35% of people thought the Scottish Parliament had a negative impact on how Britain was governed, compared to 14% in 2007.

• Those who thought devolution to Scotland had made no difference fell to 20% from a high of 64% in 2003.

IPPR report, Table 2.1

The IPPR report doesn't give an equivalent comparison with the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont. But it does give a comparison with both Scotland and Northern Ireland for the third set of figures on the share of UK public expenditure:

• Nearly a half (46%) thought Scotland got more than its fair share of UK public spending, with slightly less than a quarter (24%) saying it got "pretty much" its fair share.

• More than a quarter (28%) thought Northern Ireland got more than its fair share of UK public spending, with slightly less (25%) saying it got "pretty much" its fair share.

IPPR report, Figure 2.1 and Table 2.2

So why did the BBC single out devolution to Wales in their story ... without even a mention of the greater discontent that the English feel over both the "harmfulness" of the Scottish Parliament and the perceived "unfairness" in the levels of public spending in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Is it just blinkered parochialism, or is there a more sinister agenda at play?

And Wales Online follows in the same vein with an even worse:

Welsh Assembly is damaging Britain, claims survey of English voters

However it does at least mention the figures for Scotland ... but that makes the headline even less excusable.

Independence? It's stupidity of the first degree

2012-01-22T19:42:00.003Z

Among the endorsements that Dafydd Elis-Thomas has chosen to put on his new website in his bid to become leader of Plaid Cymru is this statement from Gwilym Owen:

Yn ôl rhai mae o'n euog o fod yn anwadal ei genedlaetholdeb a hynny yn fwy na dim am ei fod o'n ymwrthod a'r gair hwnnw "annibynniaeth". Dyna'r gair bellach sydd ar wefusau'r rheiny sy'n credu ei bod hi'n bosib ail adrodd stori'r Alban yng Nghymru. Ond twpdra o'r radd flaenaf ydi hynny wrth gwrs – ac mae Dafydd El yn ddigon hirben ac yn ddigon onest i gyhoeddi hynny.

Mae gan Blaid Cymru swyddogaeth bwysicach a hynny ydi cydweithio gyda, a sbarduno'r Llywodraeth Lafur i gynnal economi Cymru drwy gyfnod o galedi mawr. Mae gweithredu felly yn anhepgor y dyddiau hyn – ac mae gan y Cenedlaetholwyr ddyletswydd i wynebu'r her honno.

According to some he's guilty of being fickle in his nationalism and, more than anything, this is because of his rejection of the word "independence". That's the word which is now on the lips of those who believe that it's possible to repeat what's happening in Scotland in Wales. But that of course is stupidity of the first degree – and Dafydd El is shrewd and honest enough to say that in public.

Plaid Cymru has a more important role, and that is to co-operate with and spur on the Labour Government to support the Welsh economy through a period of great hardship. Working in this way is indispensable in times like these – and Nationalists have a duty to face that challenge.

Gwilym Owen in Golwg, 5 January 2012

There are two things about this endorsement that I'd like to focus on: first independence and second leadership.

Fickle about independence

Let's look first at independence and the idea that the narrative in Scotland is different from that in Wales. I don't think it is, and neither does Dafydd Elis-Thomas.

Before his professed conversion to the cause of independence for Wales, Dafydd certainly didn't think there was that much difference between Scotland and Wales. Of course he never believed in independence for Wales, but perhaps some people reading this won't remember that only a few years ago he was equally against independence for Scotland too. This is what he said in September 2004:

This week the SNP gathers in Inverness. Last week, the former leader of the Welsh nationalists spoke up about the SNP's failure to adjust to devolution, commenting: "There is still a role for them but not as a nationalist party."

He added that the SNP’s only chance of government was to cease to pursue "Scottish independence as if this is the real issue" and transform itself into a "party of government within the devolved set-up."

Scotsman, 22 September 2004

This was at a time when the SNP were at a low point, rather similar to the position that Plaid Cymru is in now. They had done very badly in the elections to the Scottish Parliament in 2003, and people were saying that they needed a change of direction in order to become electable.

But thankfully Alex Salmond refused to take Dafydd's advice and in fact laughed off the idea that the SNP should backtrack on the idea of independence.

I was amused by the Scottish press who ran the piece just before our conference and they said, "Dafydd Elis-Thomas doesn't believe in independence anymore."

"Well he never believed in independence anyway."

When asked whether there was any merit in Lord Elis-Thomas's arguments, Mr Salmond said, "Most of the criticism of the SNP actually comes from those who say we have lost sight of the vision of an independent Scotland by getting involved in devolution and getting wrapped up in the day-to-day running of politics.

"We have to do both. Where I disagree with my distinguished colleague is that you have to have a successful national party. You have to have a vision of independence galvanising support and the promise of what independence can deliver linked to a social and economic vision that you want to deliver. The job of the SNP is not to substitute the constitutional debate with the social and economic debate or vice versa but to link the two."

Western Mail, 12 November 2004

And that of course is the whole point: it is wrong to think that the debate is either to talk about constitutional matters or to talk about social and economic matters. The point is that we can only deal with social and economic matters in Wales to the extent that we can make decisions about these things in Wales. It is a question of whether we are content to let a government in Westminster make these decisions for us or whether we are prepared to take on that responsibility for ourselves.

Alex Salmond realized that the SNP had failed to make an electoral breakthrough because they had lost focus on what they existed for as a political party. But by sticking to their core aims, and by not being afraid to even mention the word independence in the way that Plaid Cymru has avoided it over most of the past decade, the SNP were able to form a minority government in 2007, and then went on to win a spectacular overall victory in 2011.

The lesson is obvious. If a political party is ambivalent about what it is for, it will get nowhere. The public won't tolerate two-faced politicians. But they will listen and respond positively to a party that wants independence for their country if that party is honest and open about it.

After being proved to have been so humiliatingly wrong, it is little wonder that Dafydd has had to change his tune in recent months. If we believe what he said to Martin Shipton, he has now become an enthusiastic supporter of independence for Wales. I was prepared to give him the benefit of any doubt about whether he was telling the truth or whether he was lying through his teeth to try and prolong his political career by a few years.

But now? All I will say is that he has done himself no favours by putting this endorsement from Gwilym Owen on his website. He's simply reopened an issue which it would surely have been wiser for him to let rest. Put simply, he's still trying to have it both ways at the same time. Dafydd clearly wants one group of people to believe one thing about him on the matter of independence for Wales, but wants others to believe something else.

Put more bluntly, he's being two-faced. But what's new about that?

Clueless about leadership

The second thing I want to look at is what Dafydd would do if he were to become leader of Plaid Cymru. For the second part of the endorsement he has put on his website maintains that the "more important" role Plaid Cymru should fulfil is to co-operate with the Labour Government.

But why?

Is the main reason for Plaid Cymru's existence to lend a helping hand to the Labour Party? Is this the limit of Dafydd's ambition for the party? Labour are our political opponents. In order for Plaid Cymru to form the next Welsh Government in 2016 we will need to take seats from Labour in their own heartlands, and we won't do that by positioning ourselves as nothing more than Labour's little helpers. Besides that, Labour don't need our help ... they have enough seats to manage on their own.

So the whole premise of Dafydd's strategy is misplaced. All he appears to want is to put a few more years of life into a political career that's been dead on its feet for a long, long time. Other candidates (well two of them, anyway) have put forward a vision of where they want Plaid Cymru to go under their leadership, how to take Wales forward instead of continuing the slow downhill slide under Labour. The best I can find on Dafydd's new website is this page on what the job of leader is and what he will do. It's just a cut and paste from the Assembly's own rules but with nothing new, nothing special and nothing unique to offer.

Quote of the Week

2012-01-22T15:09:00.002Z

Simon Thomas said this in the Western Mail on Friday:

"If you want a leader who'll always talk about independence, then don't vote for me."
Western Mail, 20 January 2012

Don't worry, Simon. We won't.

Vote Britain

2012-01-19T04:42:00.001Z

Thanks to a comment on the previous post, I thought I'd show this video from Scottish author Alan Bissett.

I'd read the written version here, but the video is much better.

Simple referendum maths

2012-01-15T17:03:00.003Z

The ICM poll in today's Telegraph provides a timely illustration of the point I made in this post on Thursday: that not including the option of devo-max in the Scottish independence referendum will substantially increase the percentage that will vote for independence.

Three options

Independence ... 26%
Fiscal autonomy ... 26%
Status quo ... 37%
Don't know ... 10%

Two options

Independence ... 40%
Status quo ... 43%
Don't know ... 17%

ICM, 15 January 2012

I think it's reasonable to assume that the 10% who are undecided when three options are presented to them will also be undecided when presented with two. So that means the vote of the 26% who would have wanted fiscal autonomy but not independence splits three ways:

14% ... would vote for independence instead
6% ... would vote for the status quo instead
6% ... would be undecided

In other words, substantially more than half of them would vote for independence.

It is also interesting to note that people in both England and Scotland are in favour of establishing an English Parliament with the same devolved powers as the Scottish Parliament, by a margin of more than three to one:

In England

In favour of an English Parliament ... 49%
Against an English Parliament ... 16%

In Scotland

In favour of an English Parliament ... 49%
Against an English Parliament ... 16%

Yet Paul Murphy, bless him, is still thinking in terms of devolution to the regions of England rather than to England itself.

This shows that he really has no idea about what people in England think. The previous attempt to establish elected regional assemblies in England failed primarily because it ignored the idea of England as a political entity in its own right.

Alien body snatchers at large in Westminster

2012-01-14T02:47:00.004Z

I have to admit I was fooled into thinking that Wednesday's statement in the House of Commons which claimed that the Scottish Parliament had no power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence was made by Michael Moore, the LibDem MP for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk and Secretary of State for Scotland.

However it has now become clear that this proclamation was not in fact made by him, but by an alien being that has taken control of his body.

How can I be so sure? Well, this is what the real Michael Moore said in an interview on the Politics Show in May last year:

UK "will not block" Scottish independence referendum

The UK government will not move to block a referendum on Scottish independence, the Secretary of State for Scotland has said.

Liberal Democrat MP Michael Moore said there would not be constitutional questions raised about the rights or wrongs of holding a vote.

The newly-elected majority SNP Scottish government intends to bring forward a referendum in its five-year term. The Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems all oppose independence.

Mr Moore told BBC Scotland's Politics Show it was now up to the SNP to bring forward the referendum, which First Minister Alex Salmond said would come "well into the second half" of the new, five-year parliament.

"I firmly believe the Scottish Parliament, if it so decides, can proceed with a referendum," Mr Moore said, adding: "There will be the normal electoral rules that have to be followed and it will have to be discussed carefully with the relevant authorities."

The Scottish secretary added: "We could, I suppose, try to make a constitutional issue about where the powers lie or don't, but I don't think that would be a sensible use of anybody's time."

BBC, 8 May 2011

So we shouldn't be taken in by the new-found dogmatism coming from the unionist parties this week. What they are saying now is definitely not what they were saying only a few months ago.

You can't have devo-max

2012-01-12T20:33:00.017Z

After David Cameron's rather combative statements on the Andrew Marr programme on Sunday, I made sure that I was watching Michael Moore's statement in the Commons on how the UK Government saw the referendum on independence for Scotland. It was notably much more woolly and much less definitive than I was expecting.

In essence, all that's happened is that they are launching a public consultation asking people for their opinions on what they should do. That document is available here.

There are many detailed points in it that could and no doubt will be discussed. I disagree with the contention that the Scottish Government cannot legally call a referendum, but acknowledge—as do the SNP themselves—that any referendum it could call under the Scotland Act would have to be phrased very carefully. The proposed wording in their 2010 paper was to ask whether:

The [Scottish] Parliament's powers should be extended to enable independence to be achieved

So if the UK Government now wants to make it easier for the Scottish Parliament to ask a more straightforward question, I don't see why anyone should object to it. In purely pragmatic terms it lessens the chance of any legal dispute, and therefore means that the debate can concentrate on political arguments rather than procedural ones. But that said, there is every reason to object to the "strings" that the UK government seem to want to add to it.

In a sense, this is all a storm in a teacup. The Scottish government will continue to believe that they have the right to call a referendum, the Westminster government will continue to believe that only they can grant permission for it, and they can both go on believing what they do provided that the referendum goes ahead. Is Westminster going to quibble about the date? No. There'll be a few mutterings about them wanting it earlier but they'll let it stand at Autumn 2014. Is anyone going to worry about the wording of the question? No. It would have to be agreeable to both sides anyway, and those who are against independence in Holyrood aren't going to have a different opinion from those who are against independence in Westminster. The only real question is over who will be eligible to vote.

But the one thing that now appears not to be in doubt is that there won't be an option for devo-max on the ballot paper. I have made the point on several occasions that devo-max is not something that the SNP wants or is going to fight for. Their position has consistently been that they would consider including it as an option if there was broad public support for it, if it could be precisely defined and if it was deliverable. Whether Scotland becomes independent or not is a decision for Scotland alone irrespective of what the rest of the UK thinks; but if Scotland was going to have a new constitutional settlement while remaining a part of the UK, this would need to be agreed with the rest of the UK. In practical terms, this means that the UK Parliament had to decide what it was and agree to implement it if that is what the Scots voted for.

The answer to the first of those three ifs is clear. In round numbers, the opinion polls tend to show that 30% support independence, 35% support devo-max (or at least much more devolution than is currently included in the Scotland Bill) and maybe 25% don't want any more than is included in the current Scotland Bill. So there is clearly broad public support for devo-max or devo-plus. But the answer to the second if is that none of the three unionist parties is prepared to define it, let alone work together to deliver the third if, namely a firm proposal that would win majority support in Westminster.

It is for these reasons that a question on devo-max is not going to be included on the ballot paper. Not because Westminster refuses to allow Holyrood the right to ask the question in a referendum, but because the three unionist parties together are unwilling to let the people of Scotland have it.

It goes without saying that they have reached this position because of the political calculations that have been made behind the scenes. But I have to question how sensible those decisions are. If we take them at their word, the primary concern of the three unionist parties should surely be to keep the United Kingdom together. So why would they refuse to countenance giving people in Scotland the greater degree of devolution they clearly want if it would keep Scotland within the UK? I think there are probably two answers.

First, that they are more concerned about denying the SNP any sort of "victory". True, devo-max is not the sort of victory that the SNP want; but to use a sporting analogy it would be the equivalent of getting a draw and therefore keeps them in the contest in the hope of getting the victory they want in a later replay. It appears that scoring party political points over the SNP is more important than working out a sustainable model for the future of the UK.

But second, they probably wouldn't do this if they took the possibility of Scottish independence seriously. For if they saw the continued existence of the UK as being under threat they would surely take whatever steps are necessary to hold it together. This is the big "blind spot" for most unionists. They see the 30% / 35% / 25% split in public opinion in Scotland and read it as 30% wanting independence but 60% being happy to remain part of the UK. I, other nationalists, and maybe only a handful of unionists read it as 25% being happy with the UK as it stands but 65% who want something better.

If people are offered a three way choice between the status quo, taking one big step to independence or taking the intermediate step of full fiscal autonomy in a federal UK, there is bound to be a significant number who will take the first step and then decide if they want to take the second step later. But if that third option is taken off the table, the 35% or so who wanted to take it one step at a time will be faced with a stark choice: either to stay in a UK that refuses to allow them the degree of autonomy they want, or to take full responsibility for their own future by becoming an independent country.

I've no doubt that some of them will decide to put up with continuing to be part of a UK in which they are drip-fed more devolution in tiny doses as and when the UK thinks it appropriate. But I'm confident that more of them will decide that they've finally had enough of being told what they can and can't do.

That's the fundamental miscalculation that the three unionist parties have now made. In the couple of years between now and the referendum in 2014, I'm sure that most of the 35% or so who wanted devo-max but not independence will decide to join those who have already decided that they want Scotland to be independent.

As the polls begin to reflect this, the unionist parties will wish that they hadn't been so dogmatic. But it was their decision to insist on a single Yes/No question in the referendum, not the SNP's.

Wales should now get £1.9bn

2012-01-10T17:11:00.008Z

I'm very pleased that the UK Transport Secretary has today announced that the HS2 line between London and Birmingham is to go ahead.

This investment of £33bn is entirely within England. By all rights Wales should get a Barnett consequential of 5.83% in so far as it is funded from the Treasury or other public funds. On the full sum, this would equate to just over £1.9bn.

The priority now is to make sure we get it, rather than have to put up with the same sort of fudge that we had to endure over the expenditure on the Olympic Games. Having seen coverage of the statement in Westminster, I think our politicians would do far better to concentrate their efforts on securing this money for Wales rather than talking about about tunnels through the Chilterns.

Update - 18:45, 10 January 2012

For those who aren't aware of it, just before Christmas the current UK Government were obliged, under the inter-governmental disputes procedure, to make a U-turn over the Barnett consequential for the Olympic Games in London ... but only for that period in which they have been in power. Details here.

Sadly, the vast majority of the expense was incurred before that when Labour were in power in Westminster, so we're only getting a small fraction of what we should have got. But the point of principle has been established. Therefore the question is whether the Welsh Government will fight for a similar Barnett consequential in this case.

Blwyddyn Newydd Dda

2012-01-01T00:01:00.009Z

Britain is stronger untied

2011-12-28T13:13:00.002Z

If ever we wanted confirmation that the LibDems don't have the first clue about the way the European Union works, we need look no further than this story in today's Scotsman:

Scotland in EU weaker than Greece, say Lib Dems

An independent Scotland would be allocated less voting power in the European Union than Greece, according to information extracted by the Lib Dems from the European Commission.

The United Kingdom currently has 29 votes within the Council of Ministers – the same number as France, Germany and Italy. This would fall to 27 votes, based on population size, if Scotland were to become independent. Scotland itself would be allocated seven votes as an independent nation – the same number as Denmark, Slovakia, Finland, Ireland and Lithuania.

George Lyon, the Lib Dem MEP, said such a small number of votes would mean Scotland would have to rely on building “shaky alliances” with other member states to pass any motion, or block any proposal.

Scotsman, 28 December 2011

This story is just plain wrong on so many levels.

First is the idea that the LibDems had to "extract" this information from the EU Commission. The information is common knowledge, and all the details of the voting weights in the Council of the EU are here.

Second, why should it be any surprise that Greece, with a population of 11.1m people, should have a greater voting weight under the current system than Scotland, with a population of 5.2m people? Of course it should.

But third, and rather more seriously, if the LibDems had actually asked the EU Commission they would have been told that the current system of voting weights in the Council of the EU is going to be replaced with a new system of qualified majority voting (QMV) from November 2014 anyway.

When this is introduced, it means that decisions taken in the Council of the EU will need to be approved by a 55% majority of member states and that these states have at least 65% of the EU's population. 55% means at least 16 out of 28 member states, for Croatia is set to join in 2013.

So let's imagine a situation where the UK wants to either get through a proposal which it considers to be in the interests of Britain or block a proposal that it considers not to be in the interests of Britain. It will no longer be able to rely on its current veto for a whole range of policy areas (there's a table of them here) and so will have to find at least 15 other like-minded countries in order to get something through or 12 to block it.

But when Scotland and Wales become independent members of the EU, the interests of Britain—and it is right to acknowledge that there are many areas where we do share a common interest—will be represented by three member states rather than just one, so we will not need to get support from as many other countries on any issue on which we can agree. Therefore Britain as a whole will have a stronger voice in the Council of the EU when England, Scotland and we in Wales can represent ourselves directly. The same will also be true in the European Parliament, although the maths is slightly different.

All three unionist parties like to tell us that Britain is stronger united, but they couldn't be more wrong. Britain isn't stronger united; Britain is stronger untied.

Wales, Slovenia and Independence

2011-12-27T03:00:00.002Z

If we want to compare ourselves with other similar countries in Europe, Slovenia is an almost perfect example. It is virtually exactly the same size as Wales, though with just over two million people.

It even gives us a run for our money in the spectacular mountain and castle department:

And the flag of the capital city, Ljubljana, bears an uncanny resemblance to a flag we are all more familiar with:

Slovenia used to be part of Yugoslavia until it declared independence in 1991 and became a member of the United Nations in 1992. Unlike Croatia and Bosnia, it was fortunate not to suffer from more than a few days of skirmishes with the Serbian army, and didn't require any post war rebuilding. So it has become a model of how a small country can prosper as a result of becoming independent.

Like Wales, Slovenia has a rich half and a poorer half with about the same degree of difference between them. These are the GDP per head figures (on Purchasing Power Standard, to adjust for differences in the cost of living as explained at the end of this document) for both countries going back to 1997, taken from this site:

Wales East West Slovenia West East

1997 18,900 13,400 14,900 10,700

1998 19,800 13,300 15,800 11,300

1999 21,000 13,500 17,100 12,100

2000 22,400 14,700 18,000 12,800

2001 23,900 15,000 18,800 13,200

2002 24,300 15,900 20,100 14,100

2003 25,100 15,900 20,900 14,300

2004 26,200 16,800 22,500 15,500

2005 26,100 17,700 23,600 16,300

2006 26,800 18,300 24,900 17,100

2007 27,500 18,200 26,600 18,200

2008 27,100 17,900 27,300 18,900

Growth 43.4% 33.6% 83.2% 76.6%

As we can see, back in 1997 Wales was significantly more prosperous than Slovenia. But in the past twelve years Wales' economic growth has been fairly pathetic, while Slovenia's rate of growth has been about double that of Wales. This means that West Slovenia has now become richer than East Wales, and even poorer East Slovenia has become richer than West Wales and the Valleys.

I see this as a good example of how a small country can benefit as a result of becoming independent rather than remaining in a comfort zone of being part to a larger state. Slovenia has become more outward looking, needing to adopt a more open trading and export orientated strategy with neighbouring countries to survive ... and has done very well as a result. It is another example of what Adam Price and Ben Levinger described in The Flotilla Effect.

Now of course there are no automatic guarantees that Wales would do as well if we were independent. It would depend entirely on the policies pursued by the governments we elected. But there is a consistent pattern of small independent countries outperforming larger ones, and there's no reason to believe that Wales would be so different from Slovenia.

So if we imagine that instead of voting for a limited amount of devolution within the UK in 1997 we had voted for outright independence from the UK, then the GDP of East Wales would now be 34,600 per head if it had matched the performance of West Slovenia, and the GDP of West Wales and the Valleys would now be 23,700 per head if it had matched the performance of East Slovenia.

I wouldn't want people to think that I've cherry picked the best example in choosing Slovenia. I chose it because of how similar it is to Wales. In the Baltic States the rate of economic growth has been very much greater. Estonia (1.4m people) grew by 150%, Latvia (2.3m people) grew by 152% and Lithuania (3.2m people) grew by 143% over the same period [see this spreadsheet]. But as ex-Soviet countries they were starting from a very much lower base, and are still below the level of GDP per head for West Wales and the Valleys. Slovenia is a much more relevant example because it did not start from very far behind us, but has now overtaken us.

Those who argue against independence for Wales say that we can't afford it. These figures are an indication of how much we are losing out as a result of not being independent. The choice for Wales is either to carry on as we are, tied to a United Kingdom that is more concerned to protect the interests of South East England and its financial services sector than it is about Wales, or to put ourselves directly into the international arena. We might well go through hard times for the first few years after independence as we rebuild our economy, but in ten or twelve years we will have more than made up for it.

Nadolig Llawen i chi i gyd

2011-12-24T14:00:00.001Z

Plaid Cymru Leadership Odds

2011-12-22T21:35:00.002Z

I sent an email to one of the betting comparison sites this afternoon to find out if any bookies were offering odds for the Plaid Cymru leadership race.

None of them had, but I got another email an hour or so later to say that Paddy Power had just done so. Their prices are:

Elin Jones ... 4/7
Dafydd Elis-Thomas ... 10/3
Leanne Wood ... 5/1
Simon Thomas ... 5/1

Oddschecker, 22 December 2011

Any comments?

Part of my reason for asking was that Martin Shipton had described Dafydd Elis-Thomas as "the front runner in the race to become leader of Plaid Cymru". I didn't think that was likely to be true ... but if it was, it certainly isn't any more.

What is Independence?

2011-12-20T23:07:00.012Z

In the Western Mail on Friday, Rhodri Glyn Thomas claimed that independence was "a concept that no-one fully understands". I can't say for sure whether he genuinely doesn't understand what independence is or if he just said this as a way of justifying his opposition to it ... though I suspect the second is much more likely to be true.

Independence is a very simple concept, and nobody should have any trouble understanding what it is. Here are just some examples, though I could provide many more:

Slovenia used to be part of Yugoslavia, but became independent in June 1991 and became a member state of the United Nations in May 1992. It then became a member state of the European Union in May 2004.



Estonia used to be part of the USSR, but became independent in August 1991 and became a member state of the United Nations in September 1991. It too became a member state of the European Union in May 2004.



Slovakia used to be part of Czechoslovakia, but became independent in July 1992 and became a member state of the United Nations in January 1993. And it too became a member state of the European Union in May 2004.



Montenegro used to be part of Serbia and Montenegro (and of Yugoslavia before that) but became independent in May 2006 and became a member state of the United Nations in June 2006.



South Sudan used to be part of Sudan, but became independent in July 2011 and became a member state of the United Nations five days later.

Independence is moving from the position of being a constituent part of a larger state to being able to represent our own national interests directly on the international stage in organizations such as the UN and EU. No nation can become a member of either one or both of these organizations unless they are independent, so for virtually all practical purposes this acts as the definition of what independence is.

One part of the smokescreen that Rhodri Glyn and others like to put up is that independence and interdependence are somehow mutually exclusive. That's silly. All independent countries are interdependent to a greater or lesser degree. On the positive side they can agree to trade with each other, cooperate with each other, make treaties and international agreements with each other, and sometimes pool aspects of their sovereignty with each other. On the negative side they will sometimes choose not to trade with certain countries, to impose sanctions or not to have diplomatic relations with them, or even go to war.

This is all part of the responsibility of being an independent nation. We will be able to make these decisions for ourselves to suit our national interests and our sense of what's right and wrong.

Spluttered Cornflakes all over the Western Mail

2011-12-19T02:51:00.006Z

I want to thank the Western Mail and Wales on Sunday, and Martin Shipton in particular, for such extensive spreads in the two papers on Friday and yesterday. The articles are on line here and here, and there was also an editorial which is not on line but can be read here.

When I and others made our formal complaint about what Dafydd Elis-Thomas and Rhodri Glyn Thomas had said, our first purpose was not to get either man deselected. We sought a conciliatory solution, recommending that the party should formally instruct them to make public statements saying unequivocally that they support the aims of the party ... and specifically the aims of independence for Wales within Europe and Wales becoming a member of the United Nations. We only wanted to see a more severe sanction if they refused to make such a statement, and suggested that this should be removal from the party's national register of candidates so that they could not stand for Plaid Cymru in future elections.

Both men had treated the disciplinary procedure with contempt by refusing to take any part in it or make a statement of the kind we requested. So one of the satisfying results of making what happened known to the wider public has been to see Dafydd Elis-Thomas and Rhodri Glyn Thomas treat a journalist with more respect than they showed anyone in their own party, by making clear statements about where they stood on the matter. Their responses are interesting because they are so different.

Rhodri Glyn Thomas said:

"This is just totally irrelevant to the real politics of Wales. The economy is in crisis, unemployment is rising month by month and someone wants to talk about a concept no-one fully understands.

"Unfortunately, because the SNP are holding a referendum on Scottish independence, some people think we should be doing the same in Wales. I suggest they go to Scotland.

"Independence is a long-term aim of the party and I've no problem with that, but this is nothing to do with the here and now. If we don’t concentrate on the crisis facing Wales today, the electorate will treat us with the contempt we deserve."

Perhaps it's best to start by clarifying the timescale. The constitution of the party doesn't describe independence for Wales as either a long, short or medium term aim and, so far as I am aware, no-one in Plaid Cymru is calling for a referendum on independence now. As has happened in Scotland, we in Wales won't get a referendum on independence until Plaid has won enough seats in the National Assembly to get such a referendum bill through or until other parties come to realize that independence is in Wales' best interests. And nobody doubts that in order to form a government Plaid Cymru will need to present convincing arguments on a whole range of issues.

But for me, these other issues are in no way separate from the issue of independence, they are part and parcel of the argument for it. In short, the best way to improve things like the level of employment is for us in Wales to take more, and eventually all, responsibility for the economy into our own hands.

But if we look at his statement carefully, it's clear that Rhodri Glyn hasn't changed his position at all. He is talking about the party's position on independence (which all of us know about) but carefully skirting round the issue of whether he has changed his own position from what it was in this interview where he said:

Let me say it's not my view. It may be the party's view, but it's never been my view.

And in a way, that's fair enough. I'll give him due credit for sticking to his principles and refusing to change his mind on an issue he obviously feels strongly about. Providing he doesn't use his position within the party to put forward his personal views and undermine the aims of the party he will not put himself at risk of another disciplinary procedure. But I'm sure he now realizes that it will be all but impossible for him to get selected as a Plaid Cymru candidate in the next Assembly election, not least because the new candidate agreement will require every candidate to explicitly confirm that they support the aims of the party. In effect, he has just deselected himself.

In contrast, Dafydd Elis-Thomas went the other way. He has come out with an amazing statement saying that he is now an enthusiastic supporter of independence for Wales:

Lord Elis-Thomas said: "I voted enthusiastically for the motion [in favour of independence in Europe] at the Llandudno conference, and so far as I am concerned David Cameron has proved that we must have it."

Anybody who is even remotely aware of politics in Wales will have spluttered their cornflakes all over the Western Mail (or their computer screen) when they read this, for it represents a truly seismic shift in his thinking. Here is a short selection of articles showing the strength of his opposition to independence in the past:

     Western Mail, 17 September 2004
     Scotsman, 22 September 2004
     Western Mail, 12 November 2004
     Daily Post, 30 December 2010
     Daily Post, 8 September 2011

His U-turn is all the more remarkable because in the last of these articles he said, "I will not change my personal convictions." Yet he now wants us to believe that he completely reversed his position only two days later.

It will be up to him how he reconciles his previous views on independence with what he's just said in the Western Mail, but if he's looking for some ideas this explanation is probably going to be more credible than any other, and he's more than welcome to use it.

Now it's not impossible for him to have had a genuine change of opinion on the matter. After all, if our arguments in favour of independence are convincing, we should expect to win over many hundreds of thousands of voters in Wales in the next few years. Therefore why shouldn't he be one of them?

As a result of what happened in Brussels the week before last, Carwyn Jones came to realize for the first time that Wales' national interests are not always the same as the interests of the UK as a whole, and would be advanced better by the Welsh Government having direct representation in the EU:

For the first time, I am now seriously concerned about whether the interests of Wales can be advanced effectively in Europe by the UK Government. For those of us who are committed to the United Kingdom, and the place of the UK within the European Union, this is a deeply concerning position to be in.

Western Mail, 13 December 2011

It is a mark of maturity for someone to reconsider their position when circumstances change, so I for one am going to give Carwyn credit for it rather than criticize him for not having seen it before now. Why should I do any less if Dafydd El has genuinely changed his mind?

The only question is whether he has or whether he's just saying it, for he has been manoeuvred into a position where he has little choice but to say that he supports independence. Unlike Rhodri Glyn he cannot simply be quiet about the subject, for if he still harbours ambitions to lead Plaid Cymru he knows full well that he wouldn't be able to sidestep the issue of independence during the leadership contest. If he continued to say he was against it he would be subject to more disciplinary procedures in the party; and if he continued to be vague, cryptic or ambivalent about it he knows that questions about it would be at the forefront of every public meeting and media interview. So what other choice does he have?

And besides that, he must surely know that the overwhelming majority of Plaid Cymru members support independence for Wales, so it would be sheer stupidity for him not to come round if he wants to get votes in the leadership contest. He might not be as principled as Rhodri Glyn, but he's certainly no fool.

Independence for Wales is a Mirage

2011-12-17T17:35:00.004Z

A GUEST POST BY DAFYDD THOMAS-ELIS

   Dafydd Thomas-Elis is the AM for Mwyfor Deirionnydd
   and an enthusiastic supporter of independence for Wales

As I made clear in yesterday's edition of the Western Mail, I voted enthusiastically in favour of the recent change in Plaid Cymru's constitution to make it explicit that our first aim as a party is independence for Wales.

However questions are now being raised about how I could have done this only two days after giving this interview to the Daily Post, in which I was quoted as saying that independence for Wales was a "mirage" and something that I found ethically incompatible.

What I said was misunderstood by the Daily Post. I was definitely not saying that independence for Wales is something illusory: like an oasis that a thirsty man in the desert might hallucinate about and believe to be within reach, but that in fact isn't real or reachable at all.

What I actually meant was that independence for Wales is like a very powerful fighter aircraft, a potent and unstoppable force in Welsh politics.

I was totally unaware that the Daily Post had misinterpreted what I said and printed the word with a small m rather than a capital M.

And although I was quoted as saying that independence was something I found to be ethically incompatible, it should have been obvious that this was a reference to the international arms trade, and specifically to the fact that France has sold these powerful fighter aircraft to countries all over the world.

I was shocked to discover that the clear and obvious meaning of what I said has been so badly misconstrued by the media and by other members of Plaid Cymru, and have therefore issued this statement so that there can be no possible doubt about my sincerity and consistency on the matter of independence for Wales.

Plaid Cymru fails to act

2011-12-15T07:30:00.020Z

As I'm sure everyone reading this will know, the first aim of Plaid Cymru as a political party is for Wales to be independent.

For a period, the party was not quite sure whether it wanted to use the "i" word, and so decided to describe its first aim as "to promote the constitutional advancement of Wales with a view to attaining Full National Status for Wales within the European Union" instead. It was a compromise that was broadly acceptable, not least because we also stated that one of our aims was specifically "to attain membership of the United Nations". As only independent sovereign states can be members of the UN, it was a round about way of saying that we wanted Wales to have the same status as nearly all other nations in the world ... but without actually using the "i" word.

However at the party conference this year we unanimously passed a motion to change our constitution and make it explicit that our first aim was "to secure independence for Wales in Europe". This reflects the fact that in recent years we have regained some of our boldness, and are no longer afraid to talk about independence.

One person who should have spoken in the debate, but didn't, was Dafydd Elis-Thomas. Instead of arguing his position in the conference hall, he decided to ignore the party completely and go straight to the press. He gave an interview to the Daily Post in which he stated, incredibly, that independence had never been what Plaid Cymru stood for, that he was ethically opposed to it, and that it was a "mirage".

Plaid Cymru leadership challenger says Welsh independence is a "mirage"

The only explanation for this behaviour was that he knew full well he wouldn't be able to change the minds of any of the delegates at conference; but being too vain to want to be seen on the losing side in the vote in the hall, he went public. He was making the clearest possible statement that whatever the party decided, he would not change his view.

Now everyone is fully entitled to their views, of course, but there is no place in any self-respecting political party for someone who is opposed to that party's fundamental aims ... and especially for someone who goes out of their way to speak against them. For Dafydd Elis-Thomas did not say this just once: in the days and weeks following that interview he went on to say in public that he wouldn't advocate any constitutional changes for Wales at all; and that he saw Wales' place as a region in Europe, with devolution and within the UK, rather than as an independent member of the EU in our own right.

At the same time another prominent member of the party, Rhodri Glyn Thomas, said in two television interviews that he did not and had never supported independence for Wales, even though he acknowledged that this put him at odds with the party.

Because these statements were clearly in conflict with Plaid Cymru's fundamental aims, I and other members of the party decided to make a formal complaint against these two men. I daresay that there will be some speculation or misinformation about what exactly we were trying to achieve, therefore I've decided to publish the complaint so that everyone can read it for themselves.

Formal Complaint against Dafydd Elis-Thomas and Rhodri Glyn Thomas

We've now heard from the panel that was given responsibility for handling the matter that the complaint was not upheld, and that the party is not going to take any action against them. We think these are cowardly and shameful decisions which make the party look ridiculous. What is the point of us deciding to make it absolutely explicit in our constitution that our first aim as a party is independence, but then allow prominent members of the party to undermine that by making a series of public statements which are in direct conflict with that aim?

Put more bluntly, what on earth is the point of Plaid Cymru continuing as a political party if it refuses to take its first and most fundamental aim seriously?

Now I will be the first to admit that in detailing what has happened I am washing Plaid's dirty linen in public. Something in our party stinks, and I am making what has happened public only because those who could and should have dealt with it have refused to wash this dirty linen in private.

We did not ask the party to do anything that we thought would be problematic or difficult. Even though it is clear from our constitution that all members must agree to further the aims of the party, and that a member will be subject to disciplinary action for actions or statements in conflict with these aims, we did not ask for either man to be expelled from the party.

We stressed that we sought a conciliatory solution, and recommended that the party should formally instruct them to make public statements saying unequivocally that they support the aims of the party ... and specifically the aims of independence for Wales within Europe and Wales becoming a member of the United Nations. We only wanted to see a more severe sanction if they refused to make such a statement, and suggested that this should be removal from the party's national register of candidates so that they could not stand for Plaid Cymru in future elections.

If the party had done this, there would have one of two outcomes: either that these men would publicly declare their support for independence, leaving us as a party that was fully united behind its aims; or that they could have quietly stood down at the next election without losing face, because no-one outside the party would have needed to know exactly why they were standing down.

But perhaps it isn't surprising that neither of them was prepared to make such a statement. If we look at the Daily Post "mirage" interview, Dafydd Elis-Thomas said:

"The priority seems to be to drive forward with greater devolution within Europe and that's always been my position."

and

"I am part of the European, green, leftist post nationalist alternative. I am very strongly a European regionalist. I will not change my personal convictions."

Daily Post, 8 September 2011

And Rhodri Glyn Thomas said these things about independence in two separate TV interviews:

"Let me say it's not my view. It may be the party's view, but it's never been my view."

Sharp End, 27 October 2011

and

"It's not a term that I’ve used during my political career, and I’m not likely to use it."

Dragon's Eye, 3 November 2011

People would not say things like this unless it was their deliberate intention to show the public that they do not and will not support the party's first aim. Nevertheless we thought we should in the first instance (at least formally, for an informal approach had been ignored) give them the opportunity to reconsider their position. But more importantly we wanted to give the party as an organization the opportunity to insist that they did so or stand down at the next election. They failed to take it.

I want to stress that there are many good, sincere people in Plaid Cymru who are absolutely unequivocal in their belief that Wales should be independent. I and the others who made the complaint are not some small clique within the party. On the contrary, in wanting independence for Wales we are part of the overwhelming majority. Remember that the amendment to the constitution was passed unanimously. But we suffer from a small clique entrenched in senior positions in the party who have become arrogant enough to believe that party rules don't apply to them and to think that they can ignore the rest of the party with impunity.

If I thought I was in a minority, then I would leave the party. If all I wanted for Wales was greater devolution in maybe a federal UK, then I would join a party that has this as one of its aims. But I want Wales to be independent. So even though certain people in the party might wish it, I'm not going to leave Plaid Cymru in a huff or be forced out of the party. I'm simply going to stand up for what the party says it believes in. I know others will stand with me.

So what is the point of making what has happened public?

There are many people at all levels of the party who have said they welcomed a formal complaint as an opportunity for the party to show some backbone and stand up for what it believes in. I and others have had many, many phone calls and emails over the past few weeks from people supporting what we have done and saying they were glad that someone was at last making a stand.

So it's sad and shameful that the party hierarchy has chosen to put fudge and political expediency before our principles as a party, and this must now be changed. There are two things that can be done to change it.

What members of Plaid Cymru can do

Our strength as a party does not come down from the top of the party, but grows up from the bottom. The strength of the party is each and every individual member who is active in the party and slogs their guts out giving their time, effort and money to the party. No councillor, AM, MP or MEP would get elected if it wasn't for this hard work. Why on earth should any of us waste that time and effort getting someone elected who doesn't agree with the fundamental aims of the party?

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not asking anyone to stop working for the party. But I am asking you to exercise your rights as members to make sure that the candidates you work to elect are chosen only from those who support the party's aims. If you, at branch and constituency level, kick up enough fuss you will be able to force anti-Plaid AMs like Dafydd Elis-Thomas and Rhodri Glyn Thomas out and make sure that better candidates are selected in their place.

I would also appeal to those who support independence for Wales but who have avoided or left Plaid Cymru because of our previous ambivalence towards independence to consider joining or rejoining the party. Because of what is happening in Scotland, the issue of independence will be at the centre of political debate for the next few years, so there can be no better time to join us in working for our own country's independence. We are currently having a membership drive, but I don't want anyone who joins to be under any false illusion about what our aims are, so please read the constitution first. I would rather have another 500 people who are prepared to wholeheartedly commit themselves to what the party says it stands for than 1,000 who join without thinking it through.

Finally, use your influence and votes as party members wisely. Make sure you elect the right people as branch officers, conference delegates and representatives on National Council, and make sure that they in turn are answerable to you for the way they vote on your behalf. In this way, we can clear out the rotten wood.

Over the last few months we have been conducting a root and branch review, and in a matter of weeks Eurfyl ap Gwilym will publish a report on how the party should move forward. I fully expect that he will say in no uncertain terms that it is time for Plaid and its leadership team to articulate our vision for an independent Wales or move out of the way. To their credit some of them know that; but others will need to be pushed, and we as members will have to do the pushing. It goes without saying that those who have spoken out against independence, or those who think that arguing the case for independence is a confusing distraction from what really matters are completely unsuited to lead Plaid Cymru at what our new Chief Executive has rightly described as a critical juncture in the party's history.

What others can do

Those who are not in the party can do their part too. We need our journalists in Wales to put AMs like these on the spot; to not be afraid to ask probing questions about what our AMs stand for; to refuse to accept glib or evasive answers and weasel words. Those who put forward their own views rather than representing what the party stands for should be made to squirm. A few cringe-inducing interviews with DET or RhGT will be quite enough for the Plaid Cymru leadership to ensure they don't appear on air or in the press next time.

And the same goes for politicians from other parties. Taunt and make fun of those who were elected as Plaid Cymru candidates but hold views that are in conflict with the aims of the party. They are freeloaders; people who are using their elected position to further their own personal agenda rather than the aims of the party they stood for. They deserve all the embarrassment and ridicule they get.

And yes, while you do that you can (and I'm sure you will) taunt the rest of us in Plaid Cymru for allowing such a situation to develop and doing nothing to deal with it. We deserve it ... but if what I've written in this post achieves its purpose, you will not be able to do it for very much longer.

Michael Haggett

Labour were absolutely wrong, absolutely immoral

2011-12-12T22:39:00.003Z

Carwyn Jones came out with an amazing attack on the performance of his own party when they were in power at Westminster on Dragon's Eye last Thursday:

He was of course referring to the fact that in 2007 the Labour government in Westminster introduced regional pay scales in the Department for Constitutional Affairs before it became the Ministry of Justice. This is a taste of the outcry that greeted the proposal:

Welsh civil servants pay crisis
Union condemns court 'pay divide'

Yet despite all the protests, Labour went ahead and implemented the plan in August 2007. The quality isn't very good, but this is a map showing how it works.

It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. I'm sure that Carwyn Jones had completely forgotten about what his own party had done less than five years ago, for it would be hard to imagine him making such a gaffe if he had been. He just gave the unthinking, standard knee-jerk reaction that any Labour politician gives to a proposal that comes from the Tories in Westminster, completely unaware of the double standards involved.

But he has got it half right: the actions of Westminster governments are the problem, it's just that the colour of the government is irrelevant; for either way—whether under Labour before or the Tories and LibDems now—Wales loses out. Standing up for Wales doesn't just mean standing up to what the Tories are now proposing, it must also mean standing up to what Labour not only proposed, but actually implemented.

So yes, let's welcome the fact that Carwyn is at last prepared to consider the Welsh Government taking responsibility for negotiating and setting the terms and conditions for the public sector in Wales:

Welsh government 'could take over' public sector pay

The Welsh government might look at whether it can take responsibility for the pay and conditions of public sector workers, says First Minister Carwyn Jones.

Chancellor George Osborne has announced a review into regional pay adjustments for the public sector. Mr Jones said it could result in people in Wales being paid less to do the same work as people in south-east England.

"That's not acceptable," he said. "Ultimately we may have to look at taking over pay and conditions here in Wales. It's not as easy as it sounds. There are real issues in terms of how that's done. But if we're forced into that situation, better that than have people's pay cut by the UK government in London."

Regional pay was "code for cutting pay in Wales", he said.

BBC, 30 November 2011

But why leave it until "ultimately"? Isn't the writing on the wall clear enough? The Tories will do it, and will justify it by pointing to the fact that they are only doing what Labour did. Carwyn is just showing the same old passivity that has become his hallmark. Wake up, smell the coffee, and start pressing for public sector pay and conditions to be devolved to Wales now.

Build for Scotland

2011-12-05T23:59:00.000Z

To judge from what's quoted in the media, anyone would think that today's announcement of £1.4bn for the 21st Century Schools programme was something positive. In reality it's rather pathetic. What was to be £4bn of work has been more than halved in scope, and the money is now to be stretched over seven years instead of three. £200m a year isn't much, especially when only half of it is now going to come from the Welsh Government.

This, and indeed other essential infrastructure investment, could have been much greater if the Labour government was more ambitious and imaginative. To see what a more enterprising government can do we just need to look to Scotland, where the SNP are this week going to announce an infrastructure investment programme of £60bn.

SNP’s £60bn plan to boost the economy

Ministers will this week unveil plans to commit up to £60 billion to finance dozens of infrastructure projects to help prevent Scotland from tipping back into recession.

Amid fresh warnings that the UK is heading for its worst peacetime economic downturn since the end of the 19th century, the Scottish Government will announce plans to fund more than 80 building projects as part of a 15-year plan. Expected funding of up to £4bn a year will come from public funds, but also from a mix of new loans and investment from banks and private lenders.

Ministers are also planning to use new powers in the Scotland Bill going through the UK parliament to enable them to borrow up to £2bn from the UK Treasury’s coffers and have asked that the limit be increased so they can borrow up to £5.6bn. In the meantime, they plan to raise the rest for their capital projects programme through “innovative” financing methods.

Ministers insist the extra cash will not create a re-run of the costly high-interest loans created by old PFI deals in Scotland, which have left the taxpayer paying back far more than the capital cost for new public buildings.

The Scotsman, 4 December 2011

So what might these "innovative financing methods" be? At the bottom of the article we can see that this will be a "non-profit distributing model". Yes, it sounds exactly like the Build for Wales model that Plaid Cymru have been proposing. I'm only surprised they didn't put a bright yellow poppy on it and call it Build for Scotland.

It puts the Labour government in Wales to shame. I'm left with the feeling that any attempt at doing something positive has been put to one side simply in order for Labour to repeat, ad nauseam, that it's all the fault of the Tory cuts. Of course we've been kicked in the stomach by the Tory and LibDem cuts, but a bolder Welsh government would get up off the floor and find a way round the constraints ... just as they have in Scotland.

Gemau Glew

2011-11-30T15:13:00.001Z

Just for fun—well maybe not just for fun—here are a couple of games that have just been released by Academi Hywel Teifi. The second one is harder than the first.

Nice to see that the academic work-life balance hasn't changed much over the years.

The Spanish General Election

2011-11-21T04:00:00.008Z

The results of the Spanish general election are now clear, if not quite final, with the right wing Partido Popular winning 186 of the 350 seats in the lower house. This is bad news for those whose politics are generally to the left, and also bad news for those who don't support a centralized Spanish state. The 2011 result is on the left, the 2008 result on the right.

I'm sure there'll be plenty in the UK media on the implications of this for Spain, but not much on the particular implications for Catalunya and Euskadi. So let me try and put that right.

The Catalan Perspective

The big hope of the centre-right nationalist CiU in Catalunya was that Mariano Rajoy would not get an overall majority and would need to do a deal with them to form a government. That deal would have come at the price of greater fiscal autonomy for Catalunya, but because the PP have an overall majority, that isn't going to happen.

But this is not necessarily a bad thing for those who want to see Catalunya become independent, for it simply removes one of the options. For Catalunya, the situation is exactly the same as for Scotland: a big majority of the people want greater autonomy, and a good number of them would probably be satisfied with a substantially greater degree of autonomy as part of either Spain or the UK rather than independence. However, if that middle option is taken off the table, support for independence becomes greater. With a PP government in Madrid, the option of moving towards a federal Spain has been removed, for the PP are the archetypal Spanish nationalist party and if anything will move to re-centralize rather than federalize Spain. The current economic crisis will give them all the pretext they need.

These are the results for Catalunya:

CiU ... 29.35% (was 20.93%) 16 seats (was 10)
PSC-PSOE ... 26.64% (was 45.93%) 14 seats (was 25)
PP ... 20.72% (was 16.40%) 11 seats (was 8)
ICV-EUiA ... 8.09% (was 4.92%) 3 seats (was 1)
ERC (+ RCAT) ... 7.06% (was 7.83%) 3 seats (was 3)

Ara, 20 November 2011

The pattern here is a huge collapse in the Spanish Socialist vote, more marked in Catalunya that in the Spanish as a whole (where it fell from 43.87% to 28.73%). But although some of that vote went to the PP, a much larger part of the swing from left to right went to CiU. They have every reason to be very pleased with this result, for a gain of six seats was much larger than the gain of two that was being predicted when I wrote this post last weekend.

But this won't really get them anything they want from Madrid, and certainly not the same degree of fiscal autonomy as the four Basque provinces enjoy. So what is Artur Mas's plan B? He personally is in favour of independence, as is much of the CiU leadership, though perhaps more so on the C (Convergence) side than the U (Union) side. The majority of party supporters now want independence too. So, at least as I see it, the next few months could see the party's official policy shift from pro-autonomy within Spain to pro-independence. If he chose to, Artur Mas would be in a very strong position to push this through because of the gains made by CiU in this election, and the new wave of austerity measures and a clampdown on regional autonomy from the Madrid government will only serve to increase the alienation between Spain and Catalunya yet further. This opportunity is too good to miss, but will he and his party be up to it?

The Basque Perspective

A week ago, the polls were predicting an almost equal four way split between the two Spanish parties (the PP and PSE-PSOE), and the two Basque nationalist parties (the centre-right EAJ-PNV and the new pro-independence left coalition Amaiur). In terms of percentages, the polls were just about right. But in terms of seats won, Amaiur have come from nowhere to become the biggest party with 7 of the 23 seats. This is the graphic from Gara:

This shows the results for all four Basque provinces in Spain, rather than just the three in the Autonomous Community. The situation is complicated a little by the fact that in 2008 NaBai was a broad Basque nationalist coalition of both left and right; but in 2011 the EAJ-PNV fought as Geroa Bai in Nafarroa while the left stood as Amaiur in all four provinces.

EAJ-PNV (+ Geroa Bai) ... 24.23% (was 25.08%) 6 seats (was 7)
PP ... 22.27% (was 23.32%) 5 seats (was 5)
Amaiur ... 22.08% (EA and Aralar were 5.47%) 7 seats (was 0)
PSE-PSOE ... 21.65% (was 37.36%) 5 seats (was 11)

Gara, 20 November 2011

Again, there is a huge fall in the Spanish Socialist vote, but virtually all of it has gone to the pro-independence left. In contrast to what's happened in Spain, there has been no appreciable swing from left to right in Euskadi. The PP's vote has, amazingly, managed to go down; though the EAJ-PNV vote has probably increased slightly (because some of NaBai's vote in 2008 would have come from left leaning Basque nationalists). The numbers of seats won doesn't quite match the percentages because smaller provinces have proportionately more seats than larger provinces.

This is a stunning result for the pro-independence left in Euskadi, but what will it lead to?

7 seats won't make a blind bit of difference to a right wing Spanish government in Madrid ... nor will the combined Basque nationalist total of 13 out of 23 seats (or 11 out of 18 seats excluding Nafarroa). Instead, this is about the normalization of politics in the post-ETA era. The Spanish State has finally run out of excuses to ban the pro-independence left from standing in elections, so we are beginning to see just how strong that support is, and therefore how strong the combined support for independence is from both the left and right of the political spectrum.

Only 19% in the UK call themselves British

2011-11-20T17:40:00.002Z

There is an article in the Scotsman today about the decline in the number of people who describe themselves as British.

The British identity is in steep decline south of the border with the number of people who would describe themselves as English over British soaring, a poll has revealed. The study found that the number of people in England who would now describe themselves as English rather than British rose to 63 per cent, as opposed to 41 per cent in 2008.

The YouGov poll also discovered that just 20 per cent of the UK population preferred a British identity to any other, down from 42 per cent three years ago. The poll, taken last month, appears to show that English nationalism is on the rise at the same time as Scottish nationalism is the predominant force in politics north of the border. It prompted warnings of a shift that could threaten the Union.

The findings were last night seized on by campaigners for a separate English Parliament as further evidence that there was now a major social shift developing across the country.

And John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, said that a weakening of “Britishness” in England could have massive repercussions for the future of the Union. He said: “Adherence to a common sense of ‘Britishness’ is often thought to be a vital part of the emotional glue that helps keep the Union together. That glue has long since lost much of its strength in Scotland. If it has now been eroded in England too, the long term prospects for the Union would seem rather bleak indeed.”

Scotsman, 20 November 2011

These are the figures from the YouGov poll:

If you had to choose one of the following, would you say you are mainly ...

English ... 63%
Scottish ... 8%
Welsh ... 5%
Irish ... 1%
British ... 19%
European ... 2%
Something else ... 2%

Attitudes to Europe, YouGov, 18 November 2011

So in fact the Scotsman got it wrong. The 63% is the overall figure for those who identify themselves as English in Britain. If we look at the full survey, we will see that the percentage of those in England who describe themselves as English is probably more than 70% (66% in London, 71% in the rest of southern England and 72% in northern England). The English Midlands and Wales are put together, so it's hard to work out the figure for Wales; but it would probably be at least that high on the basis that Wales is less than a quarter of their Midlands/Wales region.

But the real story is the marked increase in those who see themselves as English rather than British, and what this means for the future. If people in England prefer to describe themselves as English as opposed to British, it makes it very unlikely that they will want the remainder of the United Kingdom to be described as anything other than England if Scotland votes to become independent in a few years' time.

Long Stay

2011-11-20T15:59:00.000Z

Devolving the Police

2011-11-14T00:51:00.003Z

I think it's true to say that all four Chief Constables in Wales support the devolution of policing from Westminster to Cardiff Bay, but it's always nice to hear it from one of them directly.

For anyone who missed it, this is what Peter Vaughan of the South Wales force said about it on the Politics Show yesterday:

I couldn't agree more. This is something that's devolved to both Scotland and Northern Ireland, and it's high time for both policing and the justice system to be devolved to Wales as well.

Looking forward to the Spanish election

2011-11-13T00:23:00.003Z

Next weekend Spain will vote on a new government. There's very little doubt that the right wing Partido Popular (PP) led by Mariano Rajoy will be the largest party, and the only real question is whether they will gain an outright majority or need support from other parties to form a government.

For me, this is of particular interest because the parties they're most likely to seek such support from will be Convergència i Unió (CiU) in Catalunya and Euzko Alderdi Jeltzalea - Partido Nacionalista Vasco (EAJ-PNV) in Euskadi. As both are on the centre-right of the political spectrum they will be natural allies, but both will want to press for greater autonomy for their respective countries, and each will support the other in that aim. For Catalunya, such an aliance will come at the price of a new fiscal arrangement similar to that already enjoyed by the four Basque provinces, which set and collect all their own taxes and only send Madrid a negotiated sum for services provided centrally and to support the poorer regions of Spain. It's probably the best model for how devo-max might work in Scotland.

Someone who left a comment on an earlier post about Catalunya pointed me to a poll which shows that CiU are likely to make a modest gain of two seats on their previous showing. This probably reflects a general swing from left to right within Catalan nationalism, with a similar swing between left and right within the Spanish nationalism of the PP and PSOE.

But what interested me more is what is happening in Euskadi, particularly now that Spain has allowed broad alliances representing the pro-independence left to participate. After Sortu was banned, they reformed as Bildu and made a major breakthrough in the municipal elections earlier this year. For this election, they have styled themselves as Amaiur. These are the results of the latest poll, with the percentages for the previous election in 2008 in brackets.

Araba

PP ... 30.3% (was 26.5%)
PSE-EE ... 24.7% (was 40.7%)
EAJ-PNV ... 19.0% (was 18.8%)
Amaiur ...18.0% (was 9%)

Bizkaia

EAJ-PNV ... 29.4% (was 31.1%)
PSE-EE ... 22.0% (was 37.0%)
PP ... 21.0% (was 19.1%)
Amaiur ... 19.1% (was 8.9%)

Gipuzkoa

Amaiur ... 36.3% (was 17.9%)
PSE-EE ... 21.8% (was 39.0%)
EAJ-PNV ... 19.0% (was 23.8%)
PP ... 15.0% (was 14.6%)

Overall

EAJ-PNV ... 24.6% (was 26.1%)
Amaiur ... 24.5% (was 10.8%)
PSE-EE ... 22.3% (was 38.2%)
PP ... 20.4% (was 18.7%)

Estudio Preelectoral, Noviembre 2011

Although there is a small swing from left to right—though not as big as would be expected given the general swing in Spain—what is remarkable is the swing away from the Spanish socialist PSE-EE to the Basque pro-independence left. Although the circumstances are different, it's akin to the slump of the Labour party in Scotland and the swing to the SNP. Perhaps this shows that it wasn't a one-off, and that the same could easily happen in Wales.

There is now a combined Basque nationalist vote of 49.1% (it was 36.8% in the equivalent election in 2008) over a combined Spanish vote of 42.7% (was 56.8%). What was a margin of 20% one way has now become a margin of 6.4% the other way. It's going to make the 2013 election to the Basque Parliament very interesting indeed.

We know how it feels

2011-11-12T15:24:00.000Z

The Argentinians have described the posting of William Windsor to a group of islands off their coast as a "provocative act", and said they couldn't ignore its "political content".

I can sympathize with them. How did we feel when he was posted to an island off the coast of Wales?

Rodiculous

2011-11-10T00:08:00.004Z

It's nice to see that Rod Hull has lost none of his ability to look ridiculous ... even without Emu.

An own goal

2011-11-09T00:56:00.001Z

I was horrified to read in this report that sports minister Hugh Robertson has written to FIFA seeking permission for both the English and Welsh football teams to wear poppies in their respective international matches this weekend.

It might well be appropriate for him to write on behalf of the English Football Association, but he should certainly not be writing on behalf of the Football Association of Wales. Huw Lewis is the minister with responsibility for sport in the Welsh government, and football is administered by separate associations in Wales and England. Therefore any request from a politician on behalf of Wales should have been made by him ... or at the very least a request should have been made by him and Hugh Robertson jointly.

Is Huw Lewis on the ball? Was he approached by the FAW but refused to take it up? Or did the FAW not approach him and go straight to Hugh Robertson instead? Perhaps Robertson took it upon himself to include Wales ... but if so, why did he not include Scotland, who are also playing this weekend? Someone has scored an own goal, and we need to get to the bottom of what happened.

We are rightly concerned that Wales' status as a separate team in international football has been questioned by some members of FIFA. A letter from a minister in Westminster on behalf of both the English and Welsh football associations will only serve to reinforce their argument that we should also play together rather than separately.

How well does England understand devolution?

2011-11-08T16:54:00.002Z

In the Politics Show on Sunday, the BBC published the results of a poll they commissioned on the future governance of Scotland. It was a poll that presented three options, rather than a straight Yes-No choice to independence, and the headline figures were:

In Scotland

Scottish Parliament with existing powers ... 29%
SP with powers over tax and welfare, but not defence and foreign affairs ... 33%
Full independence for Scotland ... 28%

In England

Scottish Parliament with existing powers ... 40%
SP with powers over tax and welfare, but not defence and foreign affairs ... 14%
Full independence for Scotland ... 24%

TNS-BMRB, 6 November 2011

For obvious reasons, commentators have drawn attention to the relatively low support for "devolution max" outside Scotland; and have rightly made the point that although the Scots can decide for themselves whether they want to be independent or not, they cannot decide on a different form of governance for a Scotland that remains within the UK without the consent of the remainder of the UK.

The low degree of support for devolution max outside Scotland might seem to indicate that the rest of the UK would not be willing to give that consent. But I would like to suggest a different explanation. The full data includes this breakdown for Wales:

In Wales

Scottish Parliament with existing powers ... 33%
SP with powers over tax and welfare, but not defence and foreign affairs ... 26%
Full independence for Scotland ... 15%

The sample is small, but the figure for devolution max is much higher than anywhere in England, and the figure for independence is generally much lower.

I wonder to what extent this is because people in England think that the Scottish Parliament, and indeed our Assembly, have far more devolved powers than either of them actually do have. To me, it is clear from the standard of debate in the UK-wide media that people in England have very little grasp of these issues. Some of the questions asked and opinions expressed in political programmes are breathtakingly naïve and ill-informed.

We in Wales have a much better grasp of the issues, because we have direct experience of devolution ... and in particular we know that there is plenty of scope for more devolution of power from Westminster to both Scotland and Wales. This could explain the marked difference of opinion between Wales and England, and indicate that opinion is likely to change as people in England become better informed.

So I would not use the results of this poll to write off devolution max as something that would be unacceptable to the remainder of the UK. The debate still has some way to go.

Devolving National Insurance and VAT to Wales

2011-11-05T18:56:00.010Z

On Thursday, there was a lengthy debate in the Commons about the Silk Commission. While waiting for some paint to dry, I caught up with it on Democracy Live, and thought that people would like to see this short exchange from it:

Here we can see Huw Irranca-Davies and Peter Hain making a strong case for varying the rates of two different taxes because it would have a significant and positive impact on jobs in Wales.

But look at the context in which they are doing it. They have to ask the Tories and LibDems in the UK government to do it, because they are in opposition and therefore can't do it themselves. And the UK government will of course refuse, because they have their own ideas of what is good for the economy of the UK as a whole, and aren't going to change those ideas because people in Wales think differently.

Yet why should it be this way? If these tax changes are good for the economy and job prospects in Wales, why shouldn't the Welsh government have the power to do in Wales what the UK government refuses to do in the remainder of the UK?

Now of course it might just be that Labour are proposing this because they are in opposition, because it makes a good sound bite, and because they know full well that the UK government won't do it. That's the luxury of not being in power.

But let's assume that they are in fact being sincere, and genuinely believe that these tax changes would benefit the Welsh economy in these difficult times. We'd have to do the sums, of course: working out how much revenue will be lost because of these tax cuts; but balancing this against fewer people out of work, and fewer building firms with not enough work on their books to keep them going ... but if the calculation was positive, why shouldn't we be able to go ahead and do it?

That's what devolution of taxation powers to Wales would mean for Wales. Instead of pleading with the Tories in Westminster to do something for Wales, and then blaming them for not doing it, we would be taking some responsibility for ourselves.

It's ironic. Here was a debate in which Welsh Labour MPs queued up to say how much they were reticent about—or completely hostile to—the Silk Commission looking into taxation powers for Wales, suggesting that it was all a sinister Tory plot. But in it, they inadvertently gave us a perfect example of how useful these powers would be to provide more jobs and boost the Welsh economy.

The Clown Prince of Comedy Maths

2011-11-03T23:59:00.007Z

It was reassuring to read in this story in today's Western Mail that Peter Hain has lost none of his blind tribalism. If the Tories support anything it must be wrong, whatever Labour supports must be right ... and if anyone has any better ideas they must be ignored.

The idea in question is that the Welsh Government should become responsible not only for how much it spends, but also for how that money is raised. Mr Hain is against this because public expenditure in Wales is greater than the money collected in Wales through taxation. That's not in question. But the figures he uses to justify his position are. He says:

The Holtham commission calculated that approximately £17.1bn of tax revenue is raised in Wales every year. Total public spending in Wales is around £33.5bn – almost twice the amount raised.

This latest demonstration of the Peter Principle starts by saying something that is true, but then twists it into a barefaced lie. £17.1bn is the total of revenues raised in Wales by UK-wide taxes for 2007-08. This is broken down in Table 4.1 of the Holtham Commission's Final Report, on page 40.

However this figure doesn't include money raised from local taxes, in particular council tax and non-domestic rates. It's not easy to calculate these figures exactly because NDR are put into a common pot for "Englandandwales" and supplemented by the Treasury before being redistributed, but Alan Trench calculated it at just over £1.9bn in this post on Devolution Matters.

The Holtham Report didn't put a precise figure on this, but does put it at approximately that level, for the very next paragraph says this:

In aggregate, total identifiable expenditure in Wales in 2007-08 was £25 billion, around £6 billion more than tax receipts. This is commonplace given Wales’s relatively high needs. Out of the devolved countries and the nine English regions, only London and the East and South East of England have fiscal surpluses.

So where does Peter Hain get his figure of "around £33.5bn" from? He doesn't say. But I can say that, at the very least, he is not comparing like with like. If he relies on Holtham for the first of his figures, he must surely also rely on Holtham for the second. But not satisfied with a six billion difference, he expects us to believe his figure of more than sixteen billion. Any clown that can get his sums wrong by several billion pounds fully deserves all the laughter he gets.

I don't think Peter really intends us to take him seriously. He wants to get his name into the papers, and the more outrageous his claims the better. That's just his personal style, and it suits his personal agenda. He knows full well that a few die-hards will now quote this supposed £16.4bn fiscal deficit as if it were the gospel truth ... at least until someone comes up with an even more outrageous figure that they can latch onto.

But there's a much more fundamental point at stake. After claiming that we only raise about half the total amount spent on us, Peter says that:

We shouldn't be ashamed or embarrassed by that. Wales' needs are greater than most other parts of UK.

No. We should be ashamed of it. We should rightly set out to address any fiscal deficit that we cannot support. The real question is how on earth we can be expected to do this without having our hands on the same enonomic levers that other governments have at their disposal.

Taxation is a tool by which we can take control of our own economy and steer it in the right direction. Every government adjusts the levels of a whole range of taxes to make their own economies more successful and to give them a competitive advantage over their neighbours. Each country has different strengths, different human and natural resources, and a different sense of what is important. Until we in Wales are able to use taxation as a tool to play to our own unique strengths, we will always be at a disadvantage.

Peter Hain and his Labour party clearly have no desire to see Wales fight for its own prosperity in this way. Put bluntly, their only solution is for us to resign ourselves to always being dependent on England; but to sugar it by saying that we shouldn't be "ashamed" or "embarrassed" enough to get off our backsides and do something about it. Nothing can or will change until we start taking responsibility for both the income and expenditure sides of the economic equation.

Rhodri Glyn Thomas ... another anti-Plaid AM

2011-11-01T14:00:00.008Z

I've just caught up with last week's Sharp End on ITVPlayer. The subject of discussion was Europe, and although it's worth watching the whole thing I want to highlight this exchange from about 33 minutes into the programme:

Adrian Masters: Shouldn't [Wales] have more [influence in Europe]? I'm going to caricature your position, Rhodri Glyn Thomas. This is what Plaid would argue: that an independent Wales within Europe would have a bigger say, would be able to speak directly to Europe.

Rhodri Glyn Thomas: Let me say it's not my view. It may be the party's view, but it's never been my view. I believe in interdependence of regions and countries within Europe.

This is another blatant example of a prominent member of the party saying something which directly contradicts Plaid Cymru's fundamental aims as set out in its constitution.

2. As the National Party of Wales, Plaid Cymru - The Party of Wales's aims shall be:

2.1 To secure independence for Wales in Europe.

2.2 To ensure economic prosperity, social justice and the health of the natural environment, based on decentralist socialism.

2.3 To build a national community based on equal citizenship, respect for different traditions and cultures and the equal worth of all individuals, whatever their race, nationality, gender, colour, creed, sexuality, age, ability or social background.

2.4 To create a bilingual society by promoting the revival of the Welsh language.

2.5 To promote Wales’s contribution to the global community and to attain membership of the United Nations.

The constitution requires all members of the party "to further the aims of the party as described in this Constitution". Therefore there is no place in Plaid Cymru for those who do not agree with these aims, and there is certainly no place for elected representatives who publicly express views which directly contradict these aims.

Plaid Cymru is therefore in crisis. I would remind members of the party that the vote taken in conference to amend clause 2.1 of the constitution was unanimous. People like Rhodri Glyn Thomas and Dafydd Elis-Thomas had every opportunity to present arguments against the aim of independence for Wales in Europe, but they didn't. Instead, they seem to think they can ignore the democratic will of the party with impunity.

There are ways in which we as members can deal with this, but it is not appropriate to detail them here on a public forum. So if any member of the party feels strongly enough about this issue to do something about it, I would ask you to contact me, Michael Haggett, at this address.

Wales takes the biggest hit

2011-10-30T14:40:00.004Z

With a hat tip to Dewi at Slugger O'Toole, there was a nice graphic in the Guardian this week showing UK public expenditure for 2010/11 compared with 2009/10, adjusted for inflation. Click the image to open the article.

As a whole, UK public spending is virtually unchanged, going up by only 0.34%. There's a lot of interesting stuff to digest at leisure, but in the bottom right hand quarter are the devolved expenditures for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I've zoomed in on these and shown them at the same scale for comparison:

As we can see, Scotland has received a 2.95% increase in expenditure in real terms, getting a better deal than the UK as a whole; Northern Ireland has received 2.01% less in real terms; but Wales has suffered a reduction of 3.92% in real terms.

Of course the settlements reflect different devolved responsibilities in the three administrations, but we can make these two points: first, that these responsibilities have not changed between 2009/10 and 2010/11; and second, that because overall UK spending is almost exactly the same it means that the cost of things devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland but not devolved to Wales would have very little effect on the overall Welsh figure. And even if we focus on the most obvious difference, we can see that Westminster's spending on police and crime was reduced by 3.2%, which is only very slightly less than the Welsh reduction.

So from these figures it's clear that Wales has had to take a much more severe cut in public expenditure than any other part of the UK.

20% margin in favour of Catalan independence

2011-10-29T23:59:00.006+01:00

It is very encouraging to see the support for independence in these pictures from Catalunya on BlogMenai, and in particular this newspaper headline:

If anyone needs a translation, it says that 45.4% would vote for independence and 24.7% would vote no, a bigger margin than in the last poll.

The poll in question is the Baròmetre d’Opinió Política, an official poll conducted every three months based on a large sample of 2,500 people. It can be downloaded here, but this is a rough translation of what another Catalan paper said about it:

Support for Catalan independence grows by more than two points, according to CEO

45.4% of those surveyed said they would vote 'yes' in a referendum on independence, compared to 24.7% who would vote 'no' and 23.8% who would not vote. The same survey shows that support for the Economic Agreement remains at 75%.

Support for the independence of Catalunya has increased 2.5 points in three months, according to the third wave of the Centre for Opinion Studies (CEO) to be presented Wednesday. Thus, 45.4% of respondents say they would vote yes to becoming an independent state in a referendum on self-determination (the wave in June was 42.9%), while those rejecting independence fell by 3.5 points to 24.7% of respondents (28.2% in June). In a hypothetical referendum, discounting those who would abstain (23.8%), the percentage voting yes would be more than 60%. Similarly, in a three-way choice, independence is the preferred option of 28.2% of Catalans (a year ago it was at 25.2%), and is in a technical tie with those wanting Catalunya to be a state within a Federal Spain (30.4%) and an autonomous region (30.3%).

Those who would vote yes in a referendum, moreover, are highest in CiU (56.4% versus 18.3%), ICV-EUiA (48.1% versus 18.7%), ERC (94.5%) and SI (95.1%), with many in PSC (27.6% with 40.4% opposed) leaving PP (only 8%). The reasons given for independence are mainly pragmatic (32.2% want to obtain economic self-management and 13.7% to "improve Catalonia" while only 11.7% said "a feeling of identity"), while Spanish national identity was uppermost for those who oppose independence (35.5% said no to preserve the "unity of Spain", 13.9% for the "feeling of identity", while 13.2% simply said it was "impossible").

The same wave of CEO's barometer of opinion indicates that support for the Economic Agreement remains at 75%. Voters in the vast majority of the parties favour this, namely CiU (84.1% support), ICV-EUiA (82.8%), ERC (93.7%), SI (100%) and the PSC (69.8%) who prefer a "federal fiscal pact." 39.2% of the electors of the PP also wanted that, as did 15.1% of Ciutadans.

Diari Ara, 25 October 2011 | Google Translate

To explain some of that, CiU currently form the Catalan government. They are a centre-right party that has traditionally been nationalist but not in favour of independence; however that is now clearly changing with many of their leaders voting for independence in the unofficial referendums. However, rather than adopting an official position in favour of independence, they are pressing for an "Economic Agreement" with Spain which would give them the same status as the four Basque provinces: namely that they set and collect all their own taxes and only give Madrid an agreed percentage for those services provided centrally. This full fiscal autonomy is probably the best model for the DevoMax option in Scotland.

The next biggest party is the Partit dels Socialistes de Catalunya, who are—rather like Labour here—definitely a Unionist party. The surprise is that 27.6% of their voters want independence, with only 40.4% against. Their "federal fiscal pact" calls for greater fiscal autonomy, but not to the extent currently enjoyed in Euskadi.

The Partit Popular are equivalent to the Tories, and are about as popular in Catalunya as the Tories are in Scotland. So even though they're solidly opposed to independence it wouldn't really make a lot of difference in any referendum. However there is a general election due in Spain next month, and they look fairly certain to win it.

ICV-EUiA are best described a "ecosocialists" with about 7% support. ERC—who with Plaid Cymru and the SNP are part of the EFA group in the European Parliament—have always wanted independence, and SI was set up specifically to call for independence in the elections in 2010, so their 95% figures are to be expected.

What happens next in Catalunya will depend on the Spanish general election next month. If the PP fail to get an overall majority, the CiU will offer them support at the price of this new Economic Agreement. But if the PP don't need support (or can get it elsewhere) getting a similar arrangement to that enjoyed by the Basque provinces seems unlikely. Spain is in so much economic trouble that it needs all the money it can get from Catalunya ... and it is getting a great deal of money from them. The headline below says that the amount redistributed to poorer regions in Spain is €2,256 per person per year, a total of €16.43bn in 2009.

If Spain does nothing to redress this disproportionate outflow of tax from Catalunya the only option left for the Catalans will be independence. So it's a win-win situation. If CiU hold the balance of power in Madrid, Catalunya will get full fiscal autonomy. But if they don't get it, the margin in favour of independence will just keep growing.

With their own supporters in favour of independence by a margin of more than three to one, CiU should now be able to shift its policy without any risk of splitting the party (all politicians put their own power base first). So there is every likelihood that the next Catalan Parliament will have a majority elected on an pro-independence mandate after the 2014 election.

HMS Blighty sinking low in the water

2011-10-27T15:49:00.001+01:00

I came across this graphic from Bloomberg Businessweek showing that sovereign debt (i.e. what has been borrowed by government) is only part of the overall debt problem.

If we concentrate only on sovereign debt, then the UK is pretty much on a par with other large economies. But if we look below the waterline at the extent of bank, business and household borrowing, the UK is burdened with more debt relative to its GDP than any other large economy.

The UK media likes to paint the picture that the UK is in a relatively good position because it isn't in the Eurozone. But the current crisis isn't primarily to do with currency; it's about debt, and specifically whether banks will stay afloat if they have to bear the losses resulting from defaults.

A Subservient S4C

2011-10-26T20:48:00.013+01:00

I am not entirely surprised by the reaction of S4C to the funding deal that has recently been announced, but I am very disappointed by it. To me, the S4C Authority has lost all backbone in standing up for itself. The change of Chair and the announcement of a new Chief Executive seems if anything to have given it a more supine attitude. This is an organization that has not only accepted a position of subservience to the BBC, but seems satisfied with it.

I've written about S4C on may occasions (click here for the posts), but reducing this to three bullet points:

•  S4C should not have escaped cuts to funding, but those cuts should not have been more severe than for the BBC
•  a replacement funding formula needed to be agreed and set out in law
•  S4C should have complete independence from the BBC

Against each of these criteria, S4C has come out badly.

Proportionate cuts

As I noted in this post in May, S4C has suffered a cut in funding of about 24% compared with the BBC's cut of 16% [as Dai Toms notes in the comments below, the actual BBC cut is less than this, making the discrepancy worse than I thought]. Nothing has happened to change this fundamental unfairness in the way the two public service broadcasters have been treated. When I wrote that post, the Welsh Affairs Select Committee had just published its report, in which they made exactly the same point:

98. Any reduction in S4C’s funding should be comparable to other public service broadcasters. We call on the DCMS to ensure that this is the case.

As I said at the time, the deal had been agreed between the BBC and DCMS, so the best way of dealing with the shortfall would be to increase the DCMS subvention. I reckoned this would be in the order of £10m, but the Tories and LibDems on the WASC failed to get even this concession from their government.

A replacement funding formula

In the BBC/DCMS agreement, funding for S4C was only set out until 2015. It did not address long-term funding. I agree entirely with what the WASC had to say on the matter in their report:

100. We recommend that the Government confirms the funding of S4C beyond 2014-15 as soon as possible. Without this certainty, S4C will not reasonably be able to develop its future strategy. Therefore, we believe that it is essential that there is a long term funding formula enacted in primary legislation.

Again, the Westminster government has completely ignored this recommendation. What we have is a situation in which the proportion of S4C's funding received from the television licence fee after 2015 will be entirely determined by the BBC without reference to anyone else.

There is no reason for S4C to have accepted this as passively as they have. The sanction open to S4C was that if it could not agree a funding arrangement with the BBC it could refuse it and the licence fee would be reduced by an equivalent amount. This would mean that the BBC would not get an unfair windfall by using S4C's money for something else; but would have meant that S4C would need to be funded by the Treasury through general taxation as it has been up to now. Of course there might be disagreement on what that sum should be, but it would at least have been decided by a democratically elected government rather than an unelected BBC.

Yet S4C has rolled over and agreed to give this up and put itself entirely at the mercy of the BBC for the bulk of its future funding. I think they are complete fools to do this. Of course the figures announced for 2016 and 2017 are not too bad (although they're not too good either, for although the licence fee is frozen the number of licences increases by about 100,000 each year) but there is absolutely no guarantee what the BBC will do when its next funding settlement is agreed for the period after 2017.

As I've said before, I think the idea of S4C getting the bulk of its funding from the television licence fee is a clever idea, for if done with the right safeguards it would ensure that the BBC and S4C, as publicly funded public service broadcasters, would in future be treated equally. In my opinion what should have been agreed was that S4C would receive a fixed percentage of the licence fee income. S4C have now contracted themselves into a future funding relationship with the BBC without having any idea what the BBC will do after 2017. They've shown all the gullibility of someone suckered into a long term contract purely on the basis that they get a good deal for the first few months.

Independence from the BBC

The consequences of letting the BBC decide S4C's funding are severe. If the television licence fee had been top-sliced as recommended by the WASC, S4C would have been free to do what it wanted with the money, subject only to its proper democratic accountability to government. But because S4C has now allowed the BBC to determine its income, it becomes necessary for the BBC to have representation within S4C to see that what it will now regard as its own money is well spent. The idea is as ridiculous as letting representatives from rival television channels such as ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky have representation on the board of the BBC. And although the details are not entirely clear, the BBC will also have a say on the appointment of the other members of the Authority.

If the BBC are allowed to put their own representative on the S4C Authority and influence the make up of the remainder of the S4C authority, then S4C is no longer independent, irrespective of the funding arrangements.

For all the BBC's protestations about allowing S4C to be independent, what the BBC mean is operational independence, in BBC-speak, that's the same sort of independence that, say, BBC2 has within the BBC. That's not independence, that's a very short leash.

At this point I should perhaps touch again on cooperation between the BBC and S4C. I am all in favour of cooperation, especially when it has the potential to reduce overheads and duplication. But cooperation should be something that is agreed rather than imposed. S4C will not be able to stand up for itself and its interests in the sort of relationship that has now been agreed.

The sad fact is that the BBC is no good friend of the Welsh language. In fact it has a very poor track record. To repeat what I said in this post, we need to be under no illusions that the BBC can be particularly ruthless in pursuit of its ends, especially when its own back is against the wall. In October last year, it made the unilateral announcement that it would cut spending on the Welsh language programmes it provides to S4C from £23.5m to £19.5m.

The BBC would no doubt say that is was at that time providing about 12 hours a week of Welsh language programming to S4C, and that it was only legally obliged to provide 10. But when S4C was first set up in 1982 there were only three other free-to-air channels available (BBC1, BBC2 and ITV) plus non-peak Channel 4 programming. In 1982, the BBC could not have broadcast more than about 36 hours a day; but now, on a typical day, the BBC broadcasts about 140 hours of programming to Wales, i.e. about four times as much as it broadcast in 1982. When repeats are taken into account the amount of original programming will be rather less, but I'm sure the BBC is producing or commissioning at least three times more English language output than it was in 1982. If they had treated English and Welsh on the basis of equality, it would mean they should now be providing about 30 hours a week of original programming to S4C. This would cost them about £60m a year.

So yes, the BBC does need to have a significant input into how more television programmes in Welsh are made, but a more equitable arrangement would be for them to have full control over how their 30 hours of programming a week, paid for out of the share of the licence fee that is given to them, is produced; but for S4C to have full control over how the percentage of the licence fee that is given to them is used.

But what hope is there of that now? As the BBC reported in the first link I gave everyone is falling over themselves to say how good a deal it is ... but that is of course understandable, for the BBC are the big winners. Yet this puts those of us who want to see a strong, independent S4C into an awkward position.

What's the point of fighting for something better if S4C themselves are not prepared to sound one note of disappointment with either the deal, or with the government in Westminster that has refused to make the changes recommended by even its own MPs on the WASC? We could have taken this crisis in Welsh language broadcasting as an opportunity to improve S4C, but we seem to have ended up with something even worse than before: bigger cuts than at the BBC resulting in less programming, an S4C that is now firmly under the control and in the pocket of a BBC with a track record of treating Welsh less favourably than English, and an S4C that isn't prepared to kick up a fuss about the unfairness.

Salmond's Speech

2011-10-23T16:21:00.003+01:00

I thought people might like to see Alex Salmond's speech from the SNP conference in Inverness yesterday:

The text of the speech is here.

What sort of kittens?

2011-10-23T14:26:00.002+01:00

I've just listened to Eluned Morgan delivering the first Patrick Hannan Lecture.

Towards the end she told the story of a child who, when asked what sort of new-born kittens he had in his box, said they were "anti-independence kittens". A week later she took a friend to see these special kittens and was told by the same child that they were "pro-independence kittens". "Hang on," she said, "last week you told me they were anti-independence kittens. What's changed?" The child said, "Their eyes are open now."

OK, she didn't tell it quite like that. But it was interesting to hear her take on how Labour in Wales made the journey from being an anti-devolution to a pro-devolution party.

Yes, Labour have come a long way in the past thirty years ... but they still haven't quite got the picture.

Correcting Confusion on Ynys Môn

2011-10-22T03:27:00.004+01:00

In Golwg360 yesterday was an article which shows Plaid Cymru at its worst. Local members of the party are criticizing party president Jill Evans for speaking at a conference being held today in Caernarfon called Wales Green and Nuclear Free organised by PAWB, CADNO, CND Cymru, Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, Friends of the Earth Cymru, Urgewald and Greenpeace.

Bob Parry, leader of the Plaid Cymru group on Ynys Môn, is quoted as saying that her participation will "discourage" those in the party who voted in favour of a nuclear energy, and that her presence would be "misleading" because Plaid Cymru had backed a second nuclear power station on the island. But it is in fact Bob Parry who is doing his best to mislead.

In the article, he claims that:

"In Plaid's Conference in Llandudno this year, a vote was passed to press forward to keep the nuclear industry on Ynys Môn. The fact that our president is speaking against Ynys Môn is going to discourage people in the party."

And said that the president should

" ... stand alongside Ynys Môn, especially because councillors had won the vote in conference this year."

They didn't win any such vote. As I noted in this post, the Plaid Cymru conference reaffirmed:

Plaid Cymru’s total opposition to the construction of any new nuclear power stations.

This includes a new nuclear power station at Wylfa. So Jill Evans has a perfect right to speak against nuclear energy on Ynys Môn or anywhere else in Wales. She is representing the party's official position on the issue as endorsed at our conference.

It makes Plaid look like disorganized amateurs when certain mavericks in the party not only refuse to accept the decisions of the party taken at conference, but then set out to deliberately misrepresent them. The sad fact is that Bob Parry is not alone, for other senior figures in the party have also tried to misrepresent our position. Elfyn Llwyd did it very publicly on Question Time in June, as I noted here.

The damage that this causes us as a party is immense. Although I can't say I have a great deal of time for Arthur Scargill, he was in north Wales only last week condemning Plaid Cymru for hypocrisy. He said:

Plaid Cymru's policy is complete hypocrisy. You can't have a position of being opposed to nuclear power, as they have claimed to have over the years, and then come up with an excuse to continue to develop nuclear power as they have done – so they say – in order to provide jobs.

It's nonsense, as they know full well, and it would be very much better for them if they at least admitted that they had told lies to the people of Wales.

And he would be right ... if it were true. But it is not Plaid Cymru who are the hypocrites and liars, it is people like Bob Parry and Elfyn Llwyd. How is someone like Arthur Scargill expected to know what Plaid's policy actually is when a hard core of senior party members systematically misrepresents the party's position? We can't expect him to have read through the details of the motions at our conference. He, like most other people, will simply accept the misinformation that our own leaders put out, which platforms like the BBC and Golwg seem all too happy to report as if it were true.

So stand up and say it clearly and unambiguously, Jill. Plaid Cymru is against nuclear power in Wales.

What is Plaid Cymru for?

2011-10-21T17:32:00.001+01:00

In response to an article by Gareth Hughes in ClickOnWales yesterday, Cynog Dafis wrote this:

He might bear in mind that independence was not the reason for establishing Plaid Cymru – he should look at Saunders Lewis’s Principles of Nationalism, even though he may dislike the man whose thinking dominated Plaid Cymru for well-nigh twenty years. SL actually argued against independence.

Plaid’s mission is to build the nation, a mammoth task that could nevertheless mobilise widespread support.

A key to realising that support is to show that Plaid is open to alternative solutions to the British question, federalism being one and independence another – though what the latter might mean in practical terms is at this time anybody’s guess.

I don't wan't to get tied up in arguments about Plaid's past. But I am very concerned about the present and, to my mind, this statement encapsulates the main thing that is wrong with Plaid Cymru: namely that some senior members of the party are presenting a view of the party which is entirely contrary to its fundamental aims.

In case anyone is in any doubt about it, these are the aims of Plaid Cymru as stated in our constitution:

As the National Party of Wales, Plaid Cymru - The Party of Wales's aims shall be:

2.1  To secure independence for Wales in Europe.

2.2  To ensure economic prosperity, social justice and the health of the natural environment, based on decentralist socialism.

2.3  To build a national community based on equal citizenship, respect for different traditions and cultures and the equal worth of all individuals, whatever their race, nationality, gender, colour, creed, sexuality, age, ability or social background.

2.4  To create a bilingual society by promoting the revival of the Welsh language.

2.5  To promote Wales’s contribution to the global community and to attain membership of the United Nations.

People cannot be members of Plaid Cymru unless they agree to further the aims of the party as described our constitution. So to put it bluntly, anyone who is "open to alternative solutions to the British question, federalism being one and independence another" should not be in today's Plaid Cymru. Membership of Plaid Cymru is for those who have made up their minds that Wales ought to be independent, not for those who are still sitting on the fence.

Of course that doesn't mean that people in Plaid Cymru can't support a federal UK as one of the steps towards independence, in just the same way as we can support devolution as a series of steps towards independence ... but we must make it clear that these are only steps towards our goal.

There is a case, indeed a very good case, for building up a movement that will attract widespread support for us taking the next steps towards a Wales where we make more decisions by ourselves, for ourselves. People from all parties, as well as people who are not particularly concerned about party politics, could be involved in it. But Plaid Cymru isn't and shouldn't try to become that movement.

Beware the Ides of March

2011-10-17T14:06:00.000+01:00

It seems entirely appropriate for the seers to have foretold that Ieuan Wyn Jones' final day as leader of Plaid Cymru will be on 15 March next year.

A formal end to violence in Euskadi

2011-10-17T02:16:00.005+01:00

It's rather hard to imagine why a group that includes Kofi Annan, Bertie Ahern, Gerry Adams, Jonathan Powell (standing in for Tony Blair) former French Minister of Interior and Defence Pierre Joxe and former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland would be meeting in Donostia / San Sebastian today unless some special announcement was to be made.

That announcement is that ETA is about to take the final steps towards disbanding, and declare that the struggle for Basque independence will now be conducted by exclusively peaceful, political means. There are details in these two articles:

Annan and Adams top list of experts at Donostia Peace Conference
Eta expected to announce definitive end to four decades of violence

This marks the culmination of all round effort by several organizations, but perhaps especially the International Contact Group led by Brian Currin. For those that want some background information, I wrote at some length about the situation when Sortu was set up in this post and in the discussion that followed.

Nobody in their right mind would do anything other than welcome this decision, though it hasn't occurred in a vacuum. I'm sure some will stress that ETA has been effectively defeated by the Spanish and French security forces, and that has indeed been a major factor. But an equally important factor has been that the pro-independence left has finally been allowed to stand in elections.

The Spanish State had previously used the flimsiest of pretexts to ban such parties from standing, and they did indeed ban Sortu too, attracting international criticism because of it. However the pro-independence left reacted not with violence, but instead put together a different group by the name of Bildu which did not get banned, and were rewarded with a spectacular breakthrough in the municipal elections in May. This, perhaps for the first time, was a concrete demonstration that the Spanish authorities could not continue to use the tactic of preventing people from voting for such parties, and this has been a big step in persuading those who had used violence that a democratic solution is now possible.

Although there is a Spanish general election next month, the big test will come in 2013, when the next elections to the Parliament of the three provinces that form the Basque Autonomous Community are due to be held. The big prize is that enough deputies from nationalist parties on both the left and the right of the political spectrum will be elected to either declare independence or force a referendum on the subject. With ETA finally out of the way, the Spanish State will find it that much harder, and perhaps impossible, to prevent it happening.

Half-hearted Unionism

2011-10-16T01:54:00.005+01:00

A poll by ComRes for the Independent on Sunday and Sunday Mirror has some interesting findings on Scottish Independence.

The headline figures are that people in the UK as a whole agree that Scotland should become independent by a margin of 39% to 38%, with the margin in Scotland rising to 49% to 37%. That's encouraging, even though the Scottish sample size is quite small.

But looking at the full data, the cross-break by political party on page 29 is very interesting:

Scotland should be an independent country

SNP ... agree 80%, disagree 11%
Plaid Cymru ... agree 83% , disagree 7%
Green ... agree 47%, disagree 27%

Labour ... agree 38%, disagree 37%
Conservative ... agree 38%, disagree 47%
LibDem ... agree 38%, disagree 40%

Obviously we'd expect a high degree of agreement from the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens, but the figures for the three main unionist parties are quite surprising. Labour and LibDem supporters in the UK as a whole are almost equally divided for and against Scottish independence; and the same percentage of Tory supporters agrees with them, although the margin against is greater because fewer are undecided.

This might well explain why the leaders of the three unionist parties are finding it so difficult to put together a case for maintaining the UK. If their own supporters are divided half-and-half on this issue, how can we expect them to be anything other than half-hearted in trying to defend it? Why fight for something even your own supporters don't really want?

How many questions will the Scots be asked?

2011-10-11T03:28:00.005+01:00

I was surprised to read in Gareth Hughes' blog yesterday that Alex Salmond had compromised his position on the independence referendum and:

... all but acknowledged this weekend that he would put a second question on the independence referendum ballot paper. The second question would offer Scotland economic autonomy without leaving the UK.

I wondered which interview this had been, and after a bit of Googling found that it was almost certainly a Comment is Free piece in the Guardian which said:

Alex Salmond is preparing to stage a referendum on Scottish independence that will offer voters a second option – full financial autonomy while remaining part of the United Kingdom.

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, the first minister said that allowing Scotland to have fiscal autonomy without full independence was "a very popular option" with "plenty of evidence" of public support. "I think there's a case for that. The case is essentially a democratic case," he said.

Guardian, 9 October 2011

One slight problem is that I can't find the interview with those words anywhere in the Guardian. In the short snippet that's quoted Alex Salmond merely acknowledges that there is a case for another option; it's far from being a commitment to it. And if anything, he says the complete opposite in the interview that the Guardian published on this page, which has both an edited 10 minute video and a longer 33 minute audio version which I've embedded.

When asked about what would happen if the SNP were to lose the referendum, he said, "I've always hypothesized on success rather than failure" and then added " ... incidentally, I won't lose." So I can't help thinking that the Guardian has got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Let me explain what I mean.

In every opinion poll in which the Scottish public is given a three way choice between the status quo (i.e what will exist at the time of the referendum), more powers and independence, the most popular option is more powers. Of late "more powers" has come to be called "devolution max" and is broadly taken to mean a fiscally autonomous Scotland responsible for all its domestic affairs but remaining part of the UK for matters of defence, foreign policy and monetary union. However if a only a two way choice is offered, the section wanting more powers has to choose between independence or the status quo. Some will opt for independence, which increases the pro-independence vote.

Therefore, if the SNP expect to get a vote in favour of independence they will not offer the "devolution max" option, because it will reduce the chances of getting a Yes vote. The SNP will only offer this option if they are in any doubt about whether they will get a Yes vote. If it is included, it will essentially be an admission that they are not sure whether the Scots are ready to vote for independence.

Whatever else happens over the next few years, this is the number one political fact of life with respect to the independence referendum.

Because of this it is highly improbable that any decision on the options in the referendum will be made in the near future. The SNP will wait to see how public opinion moves over the next couple of years. If a clear margin in favour of independence becomes apparent, there will be a simple Yes or No choice on independence.

As for the date, I think it will be in 2014: this will give the Scottish government time to negotiate with the Condem Coalition government on the exact terms of the independence settlement, but also allow for a second bite if Labour win the 2015 Westminster election. The SNP must allow time for the process to be complete before the 2016 Holyrood election, because they might just loose it.

Tri chais i Gymru

2011-10-09T21:07:00.002+01:00

Three good pictures from the Telegraph:

Let's hope it's just the first of three good weekends.

Follow the Tories on the NHS ... just this once

2011-10-05T13:51:00.003+01:00

It's not often that I agree with either the Tories or the Daily Mail, especially on anything to do with the Health Service; but this is one of the rare occasions where I do want the NHS in Wales to follow the lead they are setting.

As reported by the BBC yesterday, Andrew Lansley:

told the Conservative Party conference that GPs would be vetted to ensure they had adequate language skills and could communicate properly

and said that

proficient language skills were equally as important as proper medical qualifications when it came to doctors being able to practise in England

BBC, 4 October 2011

If this is something that goes ahead in England, there can and should be nothing to stop us doing something similar in Wales. The 1993 Welsh Language Act set out a duty for all public bodies to treat both English and Welsh on the basis of equality. But even after eighteen years, the chances of being able to get medical treatment in Welsh are patchy. This must change.

Up until now, the usual attitude has been that it was more important just to get medical treatment, and that the language it was delivered in was a secondary consideration. If people were able to get a service in Welsh it was regarded as "icing on the cake" rather than a fundamental part of the service offered.

So I welcome this long overdue change of attitude in England. I agree wholeheartedly that "proficient language skills are equally as important as proper medical qualifications" and would like to see the Welsh Government apply the same principle to the Welsh NHS as the UK government is about to apply to the English NHS.

Obviously this doesn't mean that every doctor in Wales has to be able to speak both Welsh and English, but it does mean that Health Boards in Wales should have a statutory duty to ensure that sufficient Welsh speaking medical staff are employed and available to meet the demand for services in Welsh. This of course will vary from area to area, and vary over time as the number of people who speak Welsh increases.

As yet, the new Welsh Language Standards that will come into force as a result of the Welsh Language Measure 2011 have not been set, and it will be for ministers in the Welsh Government to set them. But the general principle behind the standards is that they should have positive effects on opportunities for people to use the Welsh language. Therefore it seems entirely appropriate that the relevant standards for Health Boards should include provision to both monitor language proficiency and increase the numbers of medical staff who are able to deliver medical care in Welsh so that everyone who wants a service in Welsh can be sure of getting it.

The Arc of Prosperity

2011-10-04T13:44:00.003+01:00

Watching the Conservative Party conference is a hardly a pleasant task; but someone has to do it, and there are one or two laughs to relieve the tedium.

One of them was in their debate on the future of the UK, in which Cheryl Gillan was first up. After the usual Labour bashing, she spoke of her fears about Plaid Cymru, especially because in our own conference a few weeks ago we made our aim of independence for Wales more explicit.

As I'm sure most of us will remember, the Arc of Prosperity was a phrase used by Alex Salmond in 2006 to include Ireland, Iceland and Norway, which were at that time among the six richest nations in the world on a per capita basis. Norway has managed to stay near the top, but both Ireland and Iceland's economies suffered badly as a result of the banking crash.

But it so happens that the latest CIA World Factbook came out only a few days ago, including a list of countries (and a few sub-national entities like Bermuda, Jersey and Hong Kong) ranked on a GDP per capita basis. Norway was seventh, Iceland had slipped down to 25th and Ireland to 27th.

But where is the UK? Sadly, it's floundering at 37th.

And the CIA factbook is not alone in that assessment. The latest figures from the IMF, World Bank and OECD tell a very similar story.

CIA World Factbook

Norway ... 7th
Iceland ... 25th
Ireland ... 27th
United Kingdom ... 37th

International Monetary Fund

Norway ... 4th
Ireland ... 13th
Iceland ... 17th
United Kingdom ... 22nd

World Bank

Norway ... 5th
Ireland ... 13th
United Kingdom ... 22nd
Iceland ... 24th

OECD

Norway ... 2nd
Ireland ... 8th
Iceland ... 15th
United Kingdom ... 16th

Both Ireland and Iceland might have suffered, but they are still more prosperous countries than the UK. The figures show that we'd be fools to gloss over the enormous fall in the UK's own prosperity, which is largely accounted for by the fact that the Pound fell from a level of around $2 in 2008 to a level of around $1.60 now.

So I hate to burst your bubble, Cheryl, but we in Plaid Cymru are very happy to talk about the Arc of Prosperity. For even though a couple of the countries in it have taken a bashing, they still remain richer per head than the UK.

The economies of small, independent countries can do better than those of the large, slow to manoeuvre "oil tankers" not because they don't suffer in times of economic crisis, but because they tend to bounce back faster. That's one of the conclusions of the Flotilla Effect.

So why is Cheryl Gillan still clinging to the idea that:

"Wales doesn't need independence to prosper, it needs the interdependence of the four nations [of the UK] to provide strength and security during these difficult times."

The hard evidence shows that the UK is far from being a lifebelt, it's more like a block of concrete tied round our necks. As part of the UK, Ireland used to be poor. Independence is what allowed it to become and remain more prosperous than the UK.

David W D Cameron

2011-10-04T12:46:00.002+01:00

In his blog yesterday, David Cornock told us that "Call Me Dave" Cameron would now like to be known as "David W D Cameron" in Wales ... presumably so as not to be seen as less important than Andrew R T Davies.

But what does the W D mean?

Not quite what he thinks. For with the Tories' track record of refusing to allow us to make decisions on large energy projects, of refusing to let us decide a minimum price for alcohol, of refusing to devolve policing and justice and instead imposing elected police commissioners on us, and of refusing to let us set our own rate of corporation tax, there is only one thing it can mean:

David Withhold Devolution Cameron

The Thick of It, a Better Civil Service for Wales

2011-09-28T01:58:00.002+01:00

In his blog yesterday, Gareth Hughes mentioned one of the conspicuous omissions from the new Programme for Government published by Carwyn Jones.

It contained many worthy aspirations, but the one major area that might determine whether his programme sinks or swims was missing. In Labour's manifesto they had the intention:

"to review and seek realignment of the governance and performance of the Assembly civil service, better to reflect the developing requirements of devolution whilst remaining part of the Home Civil Service."

Now it wasn't by chance that this appeared in the manifesto. It wasn't one of these meaningless commitments thrown into bulk out the document. It was heartfelt. It appeared because many ministers in the last government felt that the civil service was "not fit for purpose." Not up to the job, but Ministers weren't able to do anything about it. Hence, their determination to change things. They really thought that if it went into the manifesto it would happen.

But today, nothing, not a whisper. Oh, never underestimate the basic conservative instinct of civil servants.

Sir Humphrey has ensured that his comfortable little number will not be scruninized by the Hackers of this world. How confident can Carwyn Jones be that his “Progamme for Government” will be met if it’s left to an unreformed civil service to carry out?

Gareth Hughes, 27 September 2011

My reaction to this omission is, as people might expect, a little different. If all you have to offer is a lacklustre set of proposals, it probably helps to be able to blame someone other than yourself for the lack of ambition behind them. Who better to blame than the Civil Service? They're hardly the best loved of public servants, anyway.

And yet—by one of those coincidences that can only be described as excruciatingly embarrassing rather than merely unfortunate—on the very same day that Labour in Wales admitted that they aren't going to bother to try and make the Civil Service work better for Wales, a report has been published showing how the Civil Service in Scotland has been successfully transformed, and transformed for the better. Click the image to download it.

The report was written by Sir John Elvidge, who is the former permanent secretary to the Scottish government. This is a short summary of it from eGovmonitor:

Scottish Government Leads the Way on Radical Civil Service Reforms in the UK - New Paper

Whitehall can learn more from the successes of the civil services reform north of the border in Edinburgh, a new paper from the Institute for Government (IfG) written by Sir John Elvidge, former permanent secretary to the Scottish government has claimed.

In his paper, Northern Exposure: Lessons from the first twelve years of devolved government in Scotland, he articulates how he as the senior most civil servant in Scotland worked with the minority SNP government, to radically transform the structure of government so it works together around a "common national purpose". These measures included reducing the number of ministers and abolishing departments and aligning the whole Scottish public sector around a single framework of national purpose – whose outcomes would be tracked and measured: "at the heart of [this] was the concept of government as a single organisation ... the idea of "joined up government taken to its logical conclusion".

In stark contrast to the Whitehall civil servants who were criticised recently by a Parliamentary Committee for lack of inertia and flexibility, the Elvidge paper praises the civil servants in Scotland for the role they played in the reforms. "As well as providing essential continuity of understanding about the processes of government, it has displayed agility and energy in assisting the adaptation of that understanding to fresh challenges," he said.

He says the model of Scottish government structure reforms was based on "an explicit rejection of departmentalism as a basis for effective government and involves the abolition of a departmental structure within the Scottish government."

"In partnership between civil service and political leadership, a radical Scottish model of government has developed since 2007, building on the learning from the earlier period of devolution. It is based on the effort to have government function as a single organisation, working towards a single defined government purpose based on outcomes, and establishing a partnership based on that purpose with the rest of the public sector which is capable of being joined by other parts of civil society," he wrote. "It places strategic leadership and the facilitation of co-operation between organisations and sections of society at the heart of the role of central government, rather than a managerialist view of the relationship of central government to others."

The former top civil servant in Scotland highlighted the role played by the Scottish public leadership forum, which brings together all Scottish public sector leaders, in ensuring the changes were not just limited to Edinburgh. He argues "my central proposition is that we are making less use than we could and should within the UK of the opportunities for transferable learning from the experience of devolution."

Lord Adonis, the former Labour Cabinet Minister and now the Director of the IfG echoed his thoughts and said the Scottish model does offer a successful alternative and it's time for Whitehall to "wake up to the changes" north of the border in Scotland.

eGovmonitor, 27 September 2011

I can only echo that alarm call. Wake up, Carwyn. If you swallow your pride for long enough to read what has happened in another devolved administration, or take any pride in the idea of a similar "common national purpose" for Wales, you might learn about some practical ways to implement what you said you wanted to do in your party's manifesto.

It appears to me that this is exactly what we in Wales need. Not just as an effective way of implementing policy, but a more efficient way of doing it.

It is also worth pointing out that Scotland does not have a separate Civil Service (although Northern Ireland does) but shares a common Home Civil Service with us in Wales and with Whitehall. So implementing changes of this sort does not require any constitutional change, and therefore is in line with your manifesto commitment. It just requires reorganization to move away from the departmental rivalries and entrenched interests that characterize the way Whitehall works. Make no mistake, we in Plaid Cymru would want to go further, but this would be a very big step in the right direction.

And, in purely practical terms, this model was set up during a period of a minority Scottish government. Therefore these ways of working will be particularly appropriate for the difficulties your current minority government is inevitably going to face in Wales. So don't use the Civil Service as an excuse, Carwyn. Make it work for Wales in the same way as the SNP have made it work for Scotland. If you're prepared to get into the thick of it, you'll certainly have cross-party support from Plaid Cymru.

A joke that's no longer funny. It's time to act

2011-09-25T20:58:00.005+01:00

Catching up with some of the television I missed during the week, I came across this snippet from Dafydd El Cid on Sharp End:

No serious constitutional changes at all, eh? No devolution of police and the justice system? No devolution of broadcasting? No control over our natural resources? No control over energy? No powers to set taxes?

How can we possibly have "self determination" when control of all these things lies outside Wales?

No wonder this man can think of little else than joining the Labour Government at the first opportunity. I can't help thinking that this would be the perfect place for him, for Carwyn Jones isn't really serious about devolving more to Wales either. They both clearly think the referendum in March was quite enough and that our constitutional settlement shouldn't be progressed any further.

As far as I'm concerned, Dafydd El ceased to have any relevance to Wales when he chose to join the House of Lords. I didn't mind him continuing to be a member of Plaid simply because of his record before then. When he then became a member of the National Assembly, things just about worked out because he took the position of Llywydd, which precluded him (or at least should have) from being an active party politician in a similar way as applies to the Speaker of the House of Commons. But when he hinted in December last year that he no longer wanted that job, I said that I thought there was no place for him as an elected politician within Plaid Cymru and that the party should act to prevent him standing if it was his intention to step down from being Llywydd.

But we didn't do that, and we are now suffering the consequences, because loose cannons are dangerous.

There is simply no room in Plaid Cymru for people who are content with the current constitutional settlement for Wales. For many years the first and foremost aim of the party, as stated in the party constitution, has been:

2.1 To promote the constitutional advancement of Wales with a view to attaining Full National Status for Wales within the European Union.

Plaid Cymru Constitution

But even this statement has now been superseded, because at conference this year delegates voted in favour (I think it was unanimous, for even the one person who spoke against the motion did not actually vote against it, but it easily got the two-thirds majority necessary) of this change:

INDEPENDENCE FOR WALES IN EUROPE
(Canton and Llandaf branch / Caerffili Constituency / Pontllanffraith and Maesycwmer Branch)

1. Conference reaffirms its support for independence for Wales in Europe.
2. In order to clarify the party’s constitutional stance, conference agrees to delete paragraph 2.1 of the constitution and insert:

“secure independence for Wales in Europe.”

Plaid Cymru Conference Handbook, 2011

This means there can be no place in Plaid Cymru for people who do not share this aim. In fact, it is clearly set out in the constitution (4.2i) that members must "agree to further the aims of the party as described in this Constitution". The five aims, as amended in accordance with the vote at conference, are:

2. As the National Party of Wales, Plaid Cymru - The Party of Wales's aims shall be:

2.1 To secure independence for Wales in Europe.

2.2 To ensure economic prosperity, social justice and the health of the natural environment, based on decentralist socialism.

2.3 To build a national community based on equal citizenship, respect for different traditions and cultures and the equal worth of all individuals, whatever their race, nationality, gender, colour, creed, sexuality, age, ability or social background.

2.4 To create a bilingual society by promoting the revival of the Welsh language.

2.5 To promote Wales’s contribution to the global community and to attain membership of the United Nations.

We need to be clear that there is plenty of room for disagreement over individual policy issues ... and indeed we have very lively debates over what our policies should be, as do all democratic parties. But there can be no place in the party for those who are openly opposed to the party's fundamental aims as set out in its constitution.

Dafydd Elis-Thomas has put himself on record as not only being opposed to independence for Wales, but of being opposed to the constitutional advancement of Wales. These are his exact words:

"I wouldn't advocate any serious constitutional changes at all."

If Plaid Cymru continues to tolerate the likes of Dafydd Elis-Thomas as even a member of the party, let alone one of our elected representatives, we will make ourselves a laughing stock in the eyes of the people of Wales. If we are seen as a party that doesn't take its own fundamental aims seriously, how can we ever expect the people of Wales to take us seriously?

We need to get rid of this dead weight.

Taxi for Clegg

2011-09-24T21:03:00.000+01:00

Thanks to the Independent for the cartoon.

What sort of taxi did you think I meant?

Still time to get that amendment in, Carwyn

2011-09-19T17:12:00.003+01:00

As a result of Peter Hain's performance in front of the cameras over the last few days, Change of Personnel today asked a question about who is seen to be leading, or at least speaking for, the Labour Party in Wales.

But despite the accolades it got me wondering, if you didn’t know any better and let’s face it most people who watched across the UK and further afield wouldn’t, you’d believe from last week that Peter Hain was Wales’s First Minister and leader of the Welsh Government, not simply the Shadow Secretary of State for Wales.

He managed to totally out think and outmanoeuvre Carwyn Jones (admittedly not a particularly difficult task) who was there and met with families but remained in the background as Peter with help from his advisers took the lead on every front from the start of the unfolding tragedy. Everything from talking with the families, appearing with the police at press conferences and updating the gathered media to launching the appeal for families - would Alex Salmond, Peter Robinson or Martin McGuiness have allowed their respective Shadow Secretaries of State to take the lead in such circumstances in Scotland or Northern Ireland? I sincerely doubt it.

So why is Carwyn Jones, who is after all supposed to be the man elected as Wales’s First Minister, so willing to let Peter Hain do it in Wales? Is what’s best for the Labour Party still more important than doing his job and leading the country, especially during such a dreadful tragedy?

Change of Personnel, 19 September 2011

I don't particularly want to concentrate in this post on the tragedy that has unfolded over the last few days. That is something that rightly puts politics into the shade. I thoroughly dislike the idea of any politician taking more of the media spotlight than the police, the rescue teams and people speaking on behalf of the families. So although I think Peter Hain should have said very much less than he did, I would apply that to any politician. I saw Carwyn Jones, Bethan Jenkins and Gwenda Thomas interviewed about what happened, as well as some local councillors (there may have been others that I missed) and I think their shorter contributions were much more appropriate than those made by Mr Hain, who even when he wasn't speaking seemed to take inordinate trouble to be seen in the background.

Yet the question about who is seen to be leading the Labour Party in Wales is important, even though overshadowed by the tragedy at the Gleision Colliery.

First, we need to realize that Carwyn Jones is only the leader of the Labour group in the National Assembly, and is First Minister because of that. There is no Welsh Labour Party; there is just one Labour Party with Ed Miliband as its leader. Peter Hain and Carwyn Jones have to fight between themselves about which one of them is the most prominent Labour politician in Wales, with the right to speak for Labour in Wales.

Carwyn Jones is disadvantaged not only by his own lack of drive and ambition (something Peter Hain could never be accused of) but by the fact that the Labour Party itself regards what is decided by Labour in Westminster as more important than what is decided by Labour in Cardiff Bay. A good example of this was that the Labour manifesto for the Assembly election in 2011 was opposed to nuclear power, but a week before the election a Labour spokesman said that the party's definitive position on the issue was in fact in their Westminster manifesto of 2010, which supported nuclear power on Ynys Môn. As John Dixon noted, the clear message was that whatever the party in Wales thinks is irrelevant if it clashes with what the party in Westminster wants.

At present the arrangement in Scotland is exactly the same as it is in Wales; but they are now set to change it, as reported here only a week ago:

Scottish Labour breaks free of Miliband

Labour has announced plans to create a new Scottish leader and a beefed-up party north of the Border to fight back against electoral dominance by the SNP. The radical reforms, to be made following the crushing loss to the SNP in May's Holyrood elections, will lead to the loosening of ties with the UK Labour movement with UK leader Ed Miliband no longer in charge of party fortunes in Scotland.

The results of a review into the Labour trouncing at the polls were made public yesterday and were billed as the biggest shake-up of the party in Scotland for 90 years. They come a week after calls for the Scottish Conservative Party to be transformed and mean that the two leading UK parties are now undergoing changes that could bring a weakening of their bonds with Scotland. Further reforms to Scottish Labour will see local party associations, which are currently drawn on Westminster seats, being scrapped and reformed along Holyrood's boundaries in a move designed to shift the party's focus to Edinburgh and away from Westminster.

The moves were agreed by the party's ruling Scottish Executive committee yesterday, but they still have to be ratified by the UK Labour Party at its conference next month. The reforms were signed off in Glasgow after the three-month review led by MSP Sarah Boyack and MP Jim Murphy. They said that while the party had delivered devolution, it had failed to follow the same principles itself.

"This is about turning the Scottish Labour Party into Scotland's Labour Party. Today, we are completing the devolution of the Scottish Labour Party," Murphy said. "From now on, whatever is devolved to the Scottish Parliament will be devolved to the Scottish Labour Party."

Boyack said: "Labour devolved Scotland when we set up the Scottish Parliament in 1999, and we are proud of that. Labour used that Scottish Parliament to deliver important reforms for Scotland, but we didn't reform ourselves. Now we need to make devolution a reality within our party too."

Scotland on Sunday, 11 September 2011

As it happens, the Labour Party conference is next week rather than next month, but it seems fairly clear that the plan for the Labour Party in Scotland to be separately constituted, able to make its own policy in the areas devolved to Scotland, and with one clear elected leader, is going to be approved.

Therefore the obvious question is why this should happen for the Labour Party in Scotland but not for the Labour Party in Wales. The areas devolved to Wales might differ from the areas devolved to Scotland, but the principle should surely be the same.

Now, I can well imagine that someone in Labour might say that there now needs to be a separate Scottish Labour Party in response to their poor showing in the election in May ... but that nothing needs to change in Wales because Labour are doing perfectly well as they are. Why fix something that isn't broken? But my answer is that this change actually has nothing to do with Labour's poor performance in Scotland. The idea was in fact a key plank of Ed Miliband's campaign to become leader of the Labour Party back in June 2010:

Miliband says Scots Labour must make own policy

Labour leadership contender Ed Miliband says the party has to embrace differences north and south of the Border.

On a campaigning visit to Holyrood yesterday to meet MSPs he backed the idea of the Scottish Parliament going its own way from Westminster on legislation, and of the party in Scotland having complete control over policy.

"The policies in Scotland for Scottish Labour should be decided in Scotland – that should not be controversial," he said. "Under my leadership we would lighten up about difference.

"The whole nature of the devolution settlement is accepting that within a United Kingdom we can learn from each other and there will be particular policies and ideas which would be appropriate to Scotland and that Scotland should be able to pursue."

The Herald, 1 July 2010

Remember that this was said at a time when Labour were miles ahead in the opinion polls in Scotland, and when nearly everyone expected them to form the next Scottish Government. So the issue actually has nothing to do with Labour having lost heavily to the SNP; the principle would have applied even if Labour had managed to form a government in Scotland, and therefore applies just as much to Wales, even though Labour have been able to form a government here.

Now of course I have no way of knowing what the agenda for Labour's party conference will be, though it's a safe bet that this subject will be on it somewhere. But will the motion only talk about a separately constituted Scottish Labour Party ... or will fairness and consistency demand that Wales is treated in the same way as Scotland?

If you were ever serious about standing up for Wales, it's not too late to get that amendment in, Carwyn.

Another example of Labour's insouciance

2011-09-18T22:23:00.003+01:00

Following Chris Bryant's failure to understand what the word insouciant means, Neil Kinnock has kindly stepped in to provide us with a perfect definition. Referring to reports in the press that his son Stephen is gay, he said:

“When you are up against garbage like that, the only way to respond is with a shrug and a smile."

Wales on Sunday, 18 September 2011

But did he just shrug it off and smile? Of course he didn't.

According to Wales on Sunday he's reacted with "fury" and "launched a blistering attack" on the media. He called what was written about Stephen "a lot of bilge" and said it was an example of one of "the most vicious forms of personal attack".

Isn't it strange that Labour politicians like Neil Kinnock and Chris Bryant say one thing, but in fact do the exact opposite of what they say?

Why is it that remarks about a person's sexuality result in furious and very vocal complaints from both these politicians, but others are expected not to kick up a fuss or complain when their language is attacked?

Dydd Owain Glyndŵr

2011-09-16T00:01:00.001+01:00

Campaigning for independence ... and two national holidays for Wales!

Welsh Independence

2011-09-14T22:28:00.000+01:00

I've only just found out that the Welsh Independence blog has been brought back to life, and looks set to do some kicking. Definitely one to add to our bloglists.

Two articles are well worth highlighting. The first is a video report from Russia Today last week, which I've embedded below. The words that go with it are here.

The second is a slightly fuller version of an article by Siôn Jobbins which appeared in Cambria Politico last month. There aren't that many differences, but it's worth reading again anyway.

Too Poor to be Independent – the same old story

Dafydd El Cid ... echoes of Carwyn

2011-09-13T22:04:00.003+01:00

We rightly laugh at Carwyn Jones for the spineless hypocrisy of not wanting tax-setting powers for Wales, yet at the same time expecting Wales to be offered them if Scotland or Northern Ireland manage to get them. But I laughed out loud when I heard Dafydd El say almost exactly the same thing about independence, citing Catalunya as an example:

"Wales is a legislative region of Europe. Anything the Catalans think they want, I'd like to get."

He obviously hasn't been able to keep up with what's happening in Catalunya since he's been strapped onto that horse. Time will tell, but as I read the situation Catalunya doesn't want to be a legislative region of Europe, but to be an independent nation alongside all the other independent nations in Europe, wanting equal status with them both in Europe and in the World.

These Catalans certainly want independence as a nation, and aren't afraid to use either the n-word or the i-word.

Nor are they afraid to decide for themselves what they want, rather than passively say "me too" only after other countries have done all the hard work.

In Profile

2011-09-13T20:30:00.001+01:00

While catching up with the BBC's coverage of the Plaid Cymru conference, I couldn't help but notice this strikingly handsome individual among the delegates.

Yes, it's me.

Ignore the BBC, Plaid Cymru still opposes Wylfa

2011-09-13T13:00:00.005+01:00

In a story on their website that was predominantly about Plaid Cymru taking a more explicit position on independence for Wales, one particularly blatant piece of BBC misreporting stood out like a sore thumb. It said:

Earlier, a motion that would have committed Plaid to opposing the building of a replacement for the nuclear power station at Wylfa on Anglesey was narrowly defeated by 42 votes to 41.

BBC, 10 September 2011

The vote in question was an amendment to one clause of what seems to have become an annual motion at conference. As always, it's best to look at the whole thing:

NUCLEAR ENERGY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
(Newport Branches / European Parliamentary Group)

Conference notes:
1. The tragic consequence of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan which led to the dangerous situation at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, namely that fuel in the reactors produced considerable amounts of heat which led to a full meltdown, causing radioactive material to leak.
2. That the incident at Fukushima, occurring on the 25th anniversary of Chernobyl, heightens concerns for the safety of nuclear energy.
3. That as a result the European Commission has proposed stress tests on all current nuclear reactors.
4. That as a result, Germany has announced that all the country’s nuclear power plants will be phased out by 2022. Switzerland has also committed to phasing out nuclear power by 2034.

Conference further notes:
1. The essential principle of energy independence given Plaid’s long term ambition for devolved sovereignty and independence.
2. That as a net exporter of energy with massive undeveloped renewable energy potential new nuclear developments are not required in Wales in the long term in order to meet energy demand.
3. That cost per KW of production for some forms of renewable power generation are lower than nuclear.
4. That the long term costs of nuclear decommissioning are not calculated.
5. The proven evidence of the effect of carbon emissions towards catastrophic climate change, also the growing pressure on fossil fuel resources including significant commodity price escalation as we approach peak fossil fuel production.
6. That the current coalition government’s policies on the carbon price floor will serve in the short term to raise consumer fuel bills and will leave the nuclear industry by the far the biggest beneficiary and also therefore fail to optimise the potential investment in renewable energy that variants of this legislation could bring.

Conference reaffirms:
1. Plaid Cymru’s belief that all energy decisions should be devolved in full to Wales.
2. Plaid Cymru’s total opposition to the construction of any new nuclear power stations.

Conference calls:
1. For Plaid at all levels to officially oppose new nuclear projects on the basis that even apart from the risks they are superfluous to Wales’ energy needs.
2. For Plaid at all levels to lobby the coalition Westminster government to restructure Carbon Price Floor legislation in order to exempt nuclear power from receiving any form of public funded subsidy.
3. For the EU’s nuclear stress tests to be carried out by independent experts and to be based on robust criteria.
4. On Plaid Cymru to welcome Germany’s decision to phase out all nuclear power stations and to encourage other governments across the world, including the United Kingdom, to follow their lead.
5. For greater investment by the Welsh government in renewables and energy efficiency measures.

-

Amendment 1 (National Assembly Group / Ynys Môn Constituency)
Add to paragraph 2 under further notes ‘Further investment is required into developing the potential of wave and tidal technologies which when commercialised could lead to Wales becoming more self sufficient in renewable energy.’

Amendment 2 (National Assembly Group / Ynys Môn Constituency)
At the end of paragraph 2 after Conference reaffirms, add ‘if the Westminster government gives the go ahead for a new nuclear power station at Wylfa, we should make sure that the investment recognises the need to employ local people, invest in training to maximise local employment and make sure that indigenous companies benefit from supply chain opportunities.’

Amendment 3 (National Assembly Group / Ynys Môn Constituency)
Delete point 1 in the paragraph Conference calls.

Amendment 4 (Ynys Môn Constituency)
At the end of paragraph 3 under Conference notes add, ‘and the UK government has called on the Chief Nuclear Inspector to carry out a review of nuclear installations.’

Plaid Cymru Conference Handbook, 2011

For the sake of the record, all four amendments were passed, and the amended motion was then passed.

The only vote that was close was on Amendment 3, and this was the one passed by 42 to 41 after a recount. However, as everyone can see for themselves, this vote was definitely not about "committing Plaid to opposing the building of a replacement for the nuclear power station at Wylfa on Anglesey". In fact, exactly the opposite is true, for the motion explicitly reaffirms:

Plaid Cymru's total opposition to the construction of any new nuclear power stations.

And, just in case Elfyn Llwyd decides to make another attempt to deny it, Amendment 2 makes it perfectly clear that conference considers any replacement nuclear station at Wylfa to be "a new nuclear power station", and that conference is therefore totally opposed to it.

So what was the narrowly approved amendment about? The clause that was deleted was for conference to call:

For Plaid at all levels to officially oppose new nuclear projects on the basis that even apart from the risks they are superfluous to Wales’ energy needs.

I found this clause a little disturbing because of its ambiguity. It can be taken two ways: the operative words are either "at all levels to officially oppose" or "on the basis that even apart from the risks they are superfluous to Wales’ energy needs". Talking to people afterwards, it was clear to me that different people took different views as to which interpretation was uppermost in their minds when voting.

For those who took the key words as being "at all levels to officially oppose", the matter was whether certain levels of the party were able to take a stance that differed from that of the party as a whole. For them it was about whether individuals like Ieuan Wyn Jones, Dafydd Elis Thomas and Elfyn Llwyd had the right to openly oppose party policy, or indeed whether individual branches could do so. My view on that is that no party can force its members to do anything, and that these people will still stand against party policy irrespective of the motions that are passed by conference. After all, they have a track record of ignoring, and sometimes misrepresenting, conference motions on this subject.

But for others I spoke to the key words were that new nuclear power should be opposed "on the basis that even apart from the risks they are superfluous to Wales’ energy needs". For them it was not about whether Plaid Cymru is opposed to nuclear power, but why the party is opposed to it. For many people the risks of a nuclear accident (or even a deliberate attack) are the paramount reason for their opposition to nuclear power, and therefore it is irrelevant whether other sources of energy could meet our needs or not.

But whatever might have been uppermost in the minds of delegates as they voted, we need to make it clear that the deletion of one clause in the motion has not in any way reversed conference's total opposition to any new nuclear power stations, including opposition to the proposed new nuclear power station at Wylfa.

Bowel Cancer

2011-09-12T10:32:00.001+01:00

This morning's Western Mail carries a story in which they claim that:

Wales is lagging behind England in tackling bowel cancer

But the figures they use show that exactly the opposite is true. Wales has 5,000 cases of bowel cancer per 100,000, of which 18 die ... a death rate of 0.36%. England has 4,600 cases per 100,000, of which 17 die ... a death rate of 0.37%.

Why the incidence of bowel cancer is greater in Wales than in England is a separate question; but the figures show that Wales is actually more successful in treating those who have the disease than England is.

Bon cop de falç

2011-09-11T00:01:00.001+01:00

As today is Catalunya's National Day, I thought a rousing version of one of the better national anthems in the world would be in order.

It's called Els Segadors, which means The Reapers, and is a song of breaking the chains and driving away the conceited and contemptful Spanish.

With the way Spain is treating the Catalans, I wouldn't be surprised to see a repeat of last July, when more than a million people were on the streets of Barcelona. We can be with them in spirit.

Four more Welsh-medium schools

2011-09-06T16:15:00.002+01:00

As this is the start of a new school year, I thought it would be good to celebrate the new Welsh-medium schools that are opening their doors for the first time.

Ysgol Tan-y-lan, Swansea

This is the first new WM school to open in Swansea since Llwynderw in 2002, and it is long overdue. Morriston is one of the parts of Swansea with the where the demand for WM education is strongest, but this is the first school in the area.

As we can see from the photographs, it is by no means a large school. When it was home to Graig Infants, it had a capacity of 113 which would imply an admission number of about 14.

But the demand for places at the school far outstrips that. As we can read here, the school will start with 20 children, and another 15 are due to start after Christmas and Easter. So it seems very clear that Swansea are having to admit children on a basis that will be unsustainable in the long term. They will therefore need either to open another school or find new premises for this school within about three years.

Swansea are set to open another new Welsh-medium school in Bon-y-maen on the east side of the city next year. However I still think that the best solution to meet the demand in and around Morriston will be to re-open Arfryn Primary as a WM school and adjust the catchment areas accordingly.

Seedling School at Maindee Primary, Newport

This new school is Newport's third WM primary and is being housed within Maindee Primary, just behind the Rodney Parade rugby ground, which has a very large number of surplus places. The school at Bettws, Ysgol Ifor Hael, was only opened in 2008.

There will be space for an annual intake of 17 children, although I'm don't know how many are starting this week. Eventually Newport will have to find a permanent location for the school, probably within three years.

Ysgol Dewi Sant, Llanilltud Fawr, Vale of Glamorgan

This is one of two new WM schools established in the Vale of Glamorgan this year. They are both described as "Starter Schools" and are in temporary buildings. This one is just next to the comprehensive school and leisure centre in Ham Lane East. No photographs as yet, but these are the plans:

I have to say that, as temporary buildings go, the quality is very much higher than would usually be expected. The layout is good, and I've been told that everybody is pleased with how light and airy the space inside is. There are 18 children starting this week, and if the numbers grow as expected it will need to be extended in a couple of years time.

It's perhaps worth noting that this sort of solution can be implemented very quickly. Only ten weeks ago, local MP Alun Cairns and headteacher Helen Jennings were standing in an empty playing field. Then the new school arrived on the back of six lorries.

Ysgol Gwynfor, Bari, Vale of Glamorgan

This starter school is the grounds of Ysgol Gyfun Bro Morgannwg. The design is identical to Dewi Sant, except that an additional double classroom unit has already been added, and the plan is for a further extension to be added in due course. As with Ysgol Dewi Sant, headteacher Sian Owen is very impressed with the standard of accommodation.

There are 17 children in the reception class, and another 10 in the nursery with more expected after Christmas and Easter.

The school has been given the temporary name of Ysgol Nant Talwg, but I'm sure that this is only because it isn't yet housed in a permanent building worthy of Gwynfor Evans' name.

Although the quality of both these demountable buildings is very high, they will eventually need to be replaced by permanent buildings, almost certainly on the same site. But when this happens, there is absolutely nothing to stop them being moved to a new site to start another new school, either in the Vale or somewhere else.

A few years ago, the Vale of Glamorgan undertook a comprehensive survey of parental wishes regarding Welsh-medium education, found that the demand was much higher than their current provision and, to their credit, then acted quickly to meet the need. This is an innovative solution, and other local authorities could learn from what they've done.

Maybe four new schools are not as many as we'd like to see, but every one is a step forward. They represent the hard work of those who have campaigned for them, often for many years, and that's something to thank them for and celebrate.

Getting a direct rail service to Heathrow

2011-09-05T11:32:00.002+01:00

I'm very pleased to see the news that the UK government is planning to build a rail link from the Great Western Line to Heathrow Airport from the west. This would mean that rail passengers from south Wales and south west England would not have to travel into Paddington and then back out again, saving about an hour.

Plans unveiled for £500m rail scheme linking Wales to Heathrow
Hammond Heathrow £500m rail link plan consideration

As the Western Mail story notes, the case for a link was put forward with new urgency a couple of months ago by Mark Hopwood of First Great Western. But in fact the key to its viability was not to consider this link in isolation, but to combine it with the spur from the new High Speed 2 line which provides a direct link to Heathrow from Birmingham and, in due course, further north. Although I haven't seen the plans, the written description exactly matches the proposal I outlined in this post:

If the spur does go ahead as reported today, it finally kills off any idea of the Heathrow Hub on the Great Western line itself, as had been proposed by Arup. I think that's a shame, but it won't be the only good idea that's not been built. However the effect of the decision is that High Speed trains from the midlands and north of England will terminate at Heathrow rather than pass through Heathrow, so the frequency of service will be limited.

The key for passengers from south Wales and south west England will be whether the station is designed to allow normal intercity trains to pass through Heathrow on the existing Heathrow Connect/Heathrow Express line. If it is, there will be the potential for more direct services between south Wales and Heathrow, because these trains will also carry people travelling on to London. But if it isn't, the number of direct trains will be limited by the numbers that want to go to Heathrow. I'd be very surprised if the numbers would justify more than one or two trains a day, if that, so it is much more likely that the normal pattern of service would be a shuttle between Reading and Heathrow, with passengers having to change at Reading.

Obviously changing at Reading is better than having to go into London and then come back out again, as at present. But it would be even better if at least one train every couple of hours was direct, which could only realistically happen if trains passed through Heathrow. So if we want a direct service to Heathrow, there's still some lobbying to be done.

Update - 6 September 2011

I have no idea why this link was reported as something that would particularly benefit south Wales, yet it seems to be the main topic of debate elsewhere. So perhaps it's worth clarifying that this link will benefit everybody who wants to get to and from Heathrow in not only south Wales, but the whole of south west and southern England from Southampton westwards, plus the Thames Valley and Cotswolds.

I think we should also question the timescale. 2021 seems like a very remote date, and I can't see why it should be left that late. The link will be useful from the time that the GW main line is electrified, but this will be done in stages, from east to west, and the section to Reading will be complete by 2016 or 2017. So there's no reason why a shuttle from Reading couldn't operate from that date.

The Tories need a dose of reality

2011-09-01T21:02:00.007+01:00

Once again the news that the number of prescriptions issued in Wales has gone up has been met with the same old response from the Tories: "It's because they're free, and we should start charging for them again."

So once again I have to write a post explaining that the rise has absolutely nothing to do with how much they cost. Year on year, the number of prescriptions issued in both Wales and England goes up by about 5%. The 61.9% rise in Wales over the past decade is actually less than the rise in England, which has seen a 67.9% increase over the same period even though their prescription charge has kept on rising.

In fact the only thing remarkable about last year's 3.3% increase in Wales is that it is so low. As we can see from the link, the rise in England last year was 4.6%.

Yes, the number of prescription items per head is higher than it is in England; but it has been higher for many years, largely as a legacy in the form of chronic industrial diseases. The gap hasn't suddenly appeared as a result of free prescriptions.

The only explanation for this knee-jerk response must be that the Tories are suffering from the same sort of disease: a chronic inability to put statistics into perspective. But sadly it's contagious, because we'd expect a healthy news media to have picked up on this by now and do some analytic reporting, rather than just collating quotes and figures. For if the BBC has got it bad, the Western Mail's version is much worse. For them, the number of prescriptions has not just risen, the figures are now "massive" and "staggering". So perhaps a strong dose of sedatives is required too.

The Insouciant Pantomime Dame

2011-08-29T12:48:00.010+01:00

Thanks to BlogMenai for reminding us that Chris Bryant is a man with double standards. Following Jonathan Edwards' complaint about this article in the Daily Mail, the Labour MP for the Rhondda provided this quote for the Independent on Sunday:

"I can't believe Jonathan Edwards has risen to the bait. Roger Lewis's piece is fatuous nonsense, but the last thing people want is a moaning version of Welsh nationalism. Wales is at its best when it is triumphantly insouciant about the criticism of others."

Independent on Sunday, 28 August 2011

I'm sure that some people might not know what "insouciant" means. But to save anyone the trouble of reaching for a dictionary, Chris Bryant has been kind enough to provide us with an example.

After being called a "pantomime dame" by George Osborne just before Christmas last year, he didn't just brush it off and carry on regardless; he took it as a slur on his sexually and shouted that the remark was "homophobic". He immediately went to the media and on Twitter to complain that George Osborne was wrong to say it and should apologize.

So there we have it: if someone makes an insulting remark about someone who is gay, the "insouciant" Chris Bryant thinks you should make an issue of it and demand an apology.

It looks like Chris Bryant was using a big word he didn't understand ... either that or he's a two-faced hypocrite who has one set of standards for himself, but applies the exact opposite set of standards to others.

"I can't believe ~~Jonathan Edwards~~ Chris Bryant has risen to the bait. ~~Roger Lewis's piece~~ George Osborne's remark is fatuous nonsense, but the last thing people want is a moaning version of ~~Welsh nationalism~~ gay rights. ~~Wales~~ The gay community is at its best when it is triumphantly insouciant about the criticism of others."

Why should Cymraegophobia be treated any less seriously than homophobia, Chris?

Teachers flatter themselves ... and deceive us

2011-08-27T02:05:00.003+01:00

In the Western Mail on Thursday was a report which said that 42% of head teachers in Wales are able to speak Welsh.

Nearly half of the nation’s head teachers are able to speak Welsh

That figure in itself is not too bad, and indeed the Chief Executive of General Teaching Council for Wales, the body which collected the data, said:

The head teacher data suggests schools are in a strong position to give leadership to Welsh language development, which means that the influence of the language is now being felt beyond Welsh-medium and bilingual schools.

On the surface that seems fair enough, but the statistics reveal a far bleaker picture than the upbeat press release suggests. We can read them for ourselves from the link on this page.

I want to start by commending the GTCW for collecting data on language ability. They added this to their statistics in 2007, so there is now enough information to iron out any blips and see if there are any discernible trends.

So far as headteachers are concerned (page 46) the figure for those who can speak Welsh has remained constant for the past five years at 42%. We can also see that only 37% are able to teach in Welsh ... a figure we'd expect to be lower since language ability varies, and some who speak might not do it well enough to be able to teach in Welsh.

But the figures for deputy and assistant headteachers are markedly lower. For deputies the figures are 31.4% and 27.4%, and for assistants 31.7% and 24.9%.

When it comes to teachers in general (page 9) the figures are just about the same as they are for deputies and assistant headteachers. There has been a very slight increase in the percentages able to speak Welsh over the last five years (from 30.9% in 2007 to 32.0% in 2011) and teach in Welsh (25.5% in 2007 to 26.3% in 2011) but the increases are hardly significant. If we bear in mind that the next generation of headteachers is going to be drawn from these pools, the trend for headteachers is likely to be downwards rather than upwards; though obviously those with better skills are more likely to be promoted.

But what of the future? Fortunately the statistics include data for newly qualified and registered teachers, and for those who reach the induction standard each year. But sadly the figures for these groups aren't very much better.

For newly qualified and registered teachers (page 22) the figures are 32.5% and 25.2% ... the first being more or less static over the past five years and the second showing a slight rise. For those who reach the induction standard (page 30) the figures are slightly higher at 35.9% and 27.9%, but there is no general upward trend and the figures were higher a couple of years ago than they are now.

All in all there does not seem to be any progress towards increasing the numbers of teachers who can speak Welsh or teach in Welsh.

As it happens, the GTCW figures probably paint a more rosy picture than is justified. They appear to be self-declarations of Welsh language ability, but more objective information on teacher training can be obtained from this document:

Initial Teacher Training in Wales 2009/10

Teacher training in Wales can include elements that enable a teacher to teach bilingually or lead to a formal certificate of bilingual education. But the proportion that obtains this is tiny:

Table A.6 - Students completing ITT courses in Wales

2002/03 ... Non-bilingual 1,815 - Bilingual 295 (14.0% of total)
2003/04 ... Non-bilingual 1,820 - Bilingual 290 (13.7% of total)
2004/05 ... Non-bilingual 1,625 - Bilingual 480 (22.8% of total)
2005/06 ... Non-bilingual 1,810 - Bilingual 255 (12.4% of total)
2006/07 ... Non-bilingual 1,450 - Bilingual 460 (24.1% of total)
2007/08 ... Non-bilingual 1,630 - Bilingual 190 (10.4% of total)
2008/09 ... Non-bilingual 1,645 - Bilingual 220 (11.8% of total)
2009/10 ... Non-bilingual 1,460 - Bilingual 200 (12.0% of total)

Source | Source for earlier years

It's worth pointing out that one set of figures is for those teaching in Wales and the other is for those doing teacher training in Wales. A proportion of those who train in Wales will go on to teach in England, and similarly some who train in England will come to work in Wales. But I'd be willing to bet that no training establishment in England includes bilingual teaching, and the number of newly qualified teachers in Wales was 1,542. So at the very most only 13% (200 out of 1,542) had been trained to teach in Welsh as well as English, which is only about half of the newly qualified teachers who claimed they could in the GTCW statistics.

Incredibly, the trend is downwards rather than upwards. Even without the anomalies of 2004/05 and 2006/07 we were training far more teachers able to teach bilingually a few years ago than we are now.

As if this wasn't bad enough, the final facet of the equation turns disappointment into total farce. Those who checked the figures I quoted against the GTCW document itself will have seen that there is a figure for newly qualified and inducted teachers "able to teach Welsh as a second language". Putting this alongside the other figures gives:

Newly qualified teachers able to ...

Speak Welsh ... Teach in Welsh ... Teach Welsh as 2nd language

2007 ... 31.7% ... 23.3% ... 54.6%
2008 ... 33.1% ... 24.9% ... 57.4%
2009 ... 32.3% ... 24.9% ... 56.8%
2010 ... 29.0% ... 22.2% ... 55.1%
2011 ... 32.5% ... 25.2% ... 53.2%

Teachers who meet induction standard each year able to ...

Speak Welsh ... Teach in Welsh ... Teach Welsh as 2nd language

2005/06 ... 32.7% ... 25.9% ... 54.0%
2006/07 ... 35.3% ... 27.8% ... 54.4%
2007/08 ... 37.0% ... 29.5% ... 57.9%
2008/09 ... 35.5% ... 28.5% ... 58.2%
2009/10 ... 35.9% ... 27.9% ... 56.5%

These figures tell us all we need to know about why we are so bad at teaching Welsh as a second language. A third of those who consider themselves able to teach Welsh to our children cannot themselves speak the language.

Can we for one moment imagine employing a teacher who cannot speak English to teach our children English? Or a employing a teacher who cannot speak French to teach French? Or employing a teacher who cannot do arithmetic to teach numeracy?

This is the reason why so many of our children sit through Welsh lessons but learn nothing more than a few words. It's not a lack of interest. It's that we tolerate a teaching profession which thinks it has members who are capable of doing a job that is quite obviously beyond their capabilities. It's that too many schools continue to employ such teachers rather than insist on employing enough teachers who are properly qualified to teach Welsh. And it's that the Welsh government is not prepared to do anything to change the teacher training requirements so that we train enough new teachers who are able to teach Welsh.

Carwyn's Website

2011-08-26T20:37:00.002+01:00

While checking one of my previous posts, I noticed that the site which Carwyn Jones set up to support his to bid to become leader of the Labour Group in the Assembly is now being used for rather different purposes.

I'd advise those who are easily offended not to visit Carwyn4Labour.com

But those who do will no doubt be pleased to see that someone's found a way to enhance, extend and prolong the site's effectiveness.

Welsh Language GCSE Results

2011-08-25T16:16:00.010+01:00

Continuing the trend set in 2009 and 2010, I want to look at today's GCSE results to see what they can tell us about how Welsh is being taught in our schools.

There are three different types of Welsh GCSE: Welsh First Language, Welsh Second Language (full course) and Welsh Second Language (short course). However a substantial number of Year 11 students, even though they study Welsh, still do not take any Welsh GCSE. The number of entries for each can therefore be used as one indicator of the state of Welsh teaching in our schools.

Unfortunately, the StatsWales figures which would show the number of 15 year old students have not yet been officially published. However the provisional figure they gave me is 34,815 for maintained schools, and it is relatively easy to adjust for the extra students in independent schools based on last years' number. In total there is a fall of just over 1,000, which is in line with the demographic trend of the past few years. The number of entries needs to be set in this context.

Total number of Year 11 students at start of year
36,065 (was 37,072) ... down 1,007

Welsh First Language
5,291 entries (14.67% of year) ... was 5,444 (14.68%) ... down 153 (down 0.01%)

Welsh Second Language (full course)
9,999 entries (27.72% of year) ... was 10,304 (27.79%) ... down 305 (down 0.07%)

Welsh Second Language (short course)
12,784 entries (35.45% of year) ... was 12,485 (33.68%) ... up 299 (up 1.77%)

Total Welsh Entries
28,074 entries (77.84% of year) ... was 28,233 (76.16%) ... down 159 (up 1.68%)

Number who did not take any Welsh GCSE
7,991 (22.16% of year) ... was 8,839 (23.84% of year) ... down 848 (down 1.68%)

Source for GCSE results
Source for Year 11 size (last year)

In numerical terms, the decrease in the number of WSL full course entries is almost exactly matched by the increase in the number of WSL short course entries—300 in round numbers—and I'm willing to bet that someone will describe this as evidence of a switch from the full course to the short course and therefore as a retrograde step. But that isn't true.

In percentage terms, the WFL and WSL full course entries remain virtually unchanged; but the number of WSL short course entries has gone up, showing that both the number and percentage of students who weren't taking any form of GCSE in Welsh at all has gone down. We are now in a position where nearly 78% of Year 11 students take some form of GCSE in Welsh. Back in 1998 that figure was less than 34%, so this is something positive even though there is still some way to go. I think it's fair to say that the WSL short course GCSE isn't very much of a qualification compared with the full course, but it is better than not taking any GCSE at all.

These tables show the overall picture, and a spreadsheet with all the details is available here:

It goes without saying that the standstill in the percentage taking WFL and WSL (full course) is something that should cause considerable concern.

In the first instance, the figures for Welsh first language GCSE still do not reflect the percentages of children who are in Welsh-medium education. We know (from the 2010-11 WMES Report that 15.9% of children were assessed in Welsh at first language standard at the end of Key Stage 3 in 2009, so we should expect pretty much the same number to be taking a WFL GCSE in 2011. But the figures suggest that about 450 students who should be taking a WFL GCSE are taking WSL instead. As I've said before, sometimes this will be because a WFL student needs a certain number of A* or A grades for the next stage of their education or career, and would be guaranteed to get one if they "downshift" in this way. We can't blame individual students for doing this. But I suspect that some schools do this routinely as a way of enhancing their figures, and that is certainly not right.

We should also note that the figures are not likely to go up in the short term. The percentage assessed in WFL at KS3 this year was only 16.0%. However in the long term the figure should go up, reflecting the increase in numbers starting in WM education, but with the important proviso that we must improve the transfer rate from WM primaries to either WM secondaries or to a WFL stream in other secondaries. At present, the loss between primary and secondary education is over 16% of the WFL primary cohort.

The WMES set a target for KS3 assessments in WFL of 20% by 2015, which should be reflected in the WFL GCSE entry two years later. However, as the rate has not moved for the past three years (16.0% in 2008, 15.9% in 2009, 16.0% in 2010) this is now going to be a particularly tough target to hit. It can only be achieved if we take action now, in particular by ensuring that children who can speak Welsh to first language standards through being in WM primaries continue to be taught Welsh to first language standard even if some or all of the rest of their secondary education is not in Welsh. What has tended to happen is that all children in each school have been taught to the same, but lower, standard for the sake of those who haven't been in WM primaries (or who have been in traditional primaries which are nominally WM, but where the standard of Welsh is lower than in designated WM primaries). This means that the more able children have been held back, and the only immediate solution is streaming. But even so, it will take a few years for this to work through to the KS3 and GCSE figures.

For me, the more disappointing figures are those for Welsh to second language standard. Although it is good to see that more students doing the WSL short course are taking the GCSE that goes with it, we should also be seeing an increase in the number of schools offering the WSL full course as opposed to the short course. This lack of progress is entirely the fault of schools, for there is absolutely nothing to stop every non-WM secondary school in Wales teaching the full WSL course now. But there has been no real sign of any progress in the past few years, and things have now reached the point where it is obvious to me that nothing will happen unless the Welsh government does something to make it happen.

In practical terms, the most direct incentive that would change this is to make WSL a core subject alongside English, maths and science (WFL is a core subject only in WM schools). It is already a compulsory subject, and that wouldn't change ... but making it a core subject would mean that it will be measured as part of the Core Subject Indicator, which both government and schools regard as an important measure of performance.

The easier alternative would be to set minimum standards for teaching Welsh as a second language; but although that might mean that the number of hours of Welsh taught each week increases, it provides no incentive for the quality of teaching to increase. And beside that, schools should be largely free to set their own timetables rather than for each detail to be set by the Welsh Government. What matters is for government to set national standards, but then leave it up to schools to determine exactly how they achieve those standards. Making WSL a core subject would therefore be a better way to increase the standards of Welsh in non-WM schools.

If we introduce this now, at Key Stage 1, it would eventually work through and result in all students who do not take the WFL GCSE taking the WSL full course GCSE in about twelve years' time.

The original version of this post did not include those in independent schools in the overall number of students, this has now been corrected.

Labour starts its U-turn in Scotland

2011-08-22T22:47:00.000+01:00

Henry McLeish was the Labour First Minister of Scotland between 2000 and 2001, but he is now leading a movement to try and get the Labour Party to reverse its position and support fiscal autonomy for Scotland.

Henry McLeish: Scotland needs freedom to run its finances

Former First Minister Henry McLeish has called for Labour to back Scottish financial independence or face political oblivion north of the Border.

Labour veteran Henry McLeish said yesterday that complete fiscal freedom from the UK is the only way his party can return to the front foot against the SNP. He has put the case for the sensational policy U-turn to UK Labour leader Ed Miliband and senior Scots MP Jim Murphy and said he is “very optimistic” they will agree.

Mr McLeish, who was First Minister from 2000 to 2001, said the Labour-backed Calman plan to give Holyrood more power was “not sufficient”.

He added: “Fiscal autonomy or devolution max, when Labour gets to that point then we will have a credible alternative to put against independence and there is no doubt it would win the support of the Scottish people in a referendum.”

Scottish Daily Express, 21 August 2011

This is interesting on a number of grounds. First, it is a realization that if the Unionists are to have any hope of defeating the referendum on Scottish independence, it won't be enough to argue that the UK is OK the way it is. The UK is not OK, and any hopes for keeping it together can no longer rest on scare stories about all the horrible things that will happen if Scots dare to vote for independence, but of radically re-inventing the UK so that it goes at least half way towards meeting their desire to take more responsibility for their own affairs.

Second, it is a realization that only Labour can invent a credible alternative to independence. As the article goes on to say:

Mr McLeish also said it would be a mistake to form a “Unionist alliance” with the Conservatives ahead of the SNP’s independence referendum.

That's a statement of the obvious. Put bluntly, it doesn't matter what plans the Tories or the LibDems might have for creating a better UK, because few people in Scotland care two hoots for what either of those parties think. If the three Unionist parties put on a united front, the No to Independence campaign is going to be tainted by the Scottish distrust of the Tories and LibDems ... something that will only grow into contempt—if it hasn't already—as the policy decisions of the ConDem coalition in Westminster really begin to bite deep. For if we think things are bad now, just wait a couple of years to see how much worse things will get.

But there is a third factor, which is particularly relevant to us in Wales. It will not be sufficient to offer the Scots a little bit more of what they already have. Nor will it be a question of just working out a deal between Scotland and Westminster. The problem with the current devolution settlement as it applies to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England is that it is asymmetric and badly thought through ... so making it even more lop-sided is only going to make things worse. A radically different UK requires dealing with the problems of over-centralization as they affect all the peripheral parts of the UK, not just one part.

What might Labour come up with? I don't want to second-guess that decision, not least because for me and other nationalists the only real answer is independence and anything short of that is just going to be a messy compromise. But if the Labour leadership do embrace this plan—and Henry McLeish is "very optimistic" that they will—they will be very tempted to come up with something that sounds wonderful but actually offers only the minimum that Labour think they can offer in order to keep Scotland as part of the UK. Political principles and short-term electoral politics don't always go hand in hand. The battle will be whether Labour can grasp the first or whether they will settle for the second.

So the touchstone of whether Labour's alternative to independence is serious or not will actually be how it deals not only with Scotland, but with Wales and Northern Ireland too; and specifically whether it will allow the devolved governments of Wales and Northern Ireland the same freedom to run our finances as Scotland's former First Minister is convinced is right for Scotland.

Wales 42.2% ... Northern Ireland 34.5% ... England 26.8%

2011-08-19T17:46:00.004+01:00

Last year, in this post, I wrote about how the the headline A Level figures for Wales did not include the Welsh Baccalaureate Advanced Diploma, which UCAS rate as the equivalent of an additional A Level at A grade for college and university admissions.

There were 4,360 WBac Advanced Diplomas awarded this summer, which is very healthy in comparison with the 2,564 who took maths A Level in Wales and 3,732 who took English. But of much more significance is the fact that the WBac pass rate was 81% ... so if it were to be counted as an A Level in the JCQ figures, it would push the Welsh grade figures up dramatically.

A total of 37,315 A Levels were taken in Wales this summer, with an A*-A pass rate of 25.0%. But if the WBac Core is added, the number taken rises by 5,383 to 42,698 and the A*-A pass rate rises to 9,329 + 4,360 = 13,689 = 32.1%

The combined A*-A pass rate for Wales, England and NI is 27.0% (Scotland takes different exams). For England alone the figure is 26.8% and for NI 35.7%.

Syniadau, 20 August 2010

This year, I hardly need to make the same point again, not least because Leighton Andrews has made it instead, and rather forcibly. As virtually no-one was making this point last year, I'll take it as a positive step forward. I'm glad someone reads this blog.

Education Minister Leighton Andrews said the A-level results did not
take into account the Welsh Baccalaureate – BBC, 19 August 2010

Leighton Andrews stopped short of saying that Welsh students outperformed those in England and Northern Ireland, so I think it would be worth doing the same calculation as I did last year to quantify just how much of a difference the Welsh Baccalaureate is making to our performance.

• A total of 37,875 A Levels were taken in Wales this summer, with an A*-A pass rate of 24.4%. But if the WBac is added, the number taken rises by 8,318 to 46,193 and the A*-A pass rate rises to about 9,052 (23.9% of 37,875) + 6,948 = 16,000 = 42.2%

• The combined A*-A pass rate for Wales, England and NI is 27.0% (Scotland takes different exams). For England alone the figure is 26.8% and for NI 34.5%.

It's worth noting that there has been a very large increase in the number of students taking the Welsh Baccalaureate advanced course. This year, there were 12,914 students in Year 13 in schools, but others would have taken it at sixth form colleges.

As I said last time, this isn't a totally accurate comparison because there are other alternatives to A Levels used as entry requirements to colleges and universities, most notably the International Baccalaureate. But that is only taken by a very small percentage of students, and is of course taken in Wales too, so it can only make a very small difference to these figures.

Welsh lessons for the Met

2011-08-18T23:27:00.000+01:00

I came across this rather heart-warming piece by Rosamund Urwin in today's London Evening Standard.

Welsh lessons for the Met

On Friday evening I went to see the Peckham peace wall. Patrolling the streets around Rye Lane were the Welsh police, the "Heddlu". Theirs appeared to be a "hearts and minds" mission: every officer had a permanent grin, they already knew the names of the local shopkeepers and I witnessed one be remarkably charming to a woman who was ranting at him. Perhaps the Met could learn a little something from the approach of their provincial colleagues.

London Evening Standard, 18 August 2011

That makes me feel rather proud of our police. Well done bois.

How do we know what people think?

2011-08-17T02:23:00.005+01:00

One thing I've particularly missed over the past few months has been the monthly opinion poll by YouGov commissioned by ITV Wales.

Of course I can understand why ITV decided not to keep it up. The referendum on primary lawmaking powers and the Assembly elections were big events in the Welsh political calendar and they were enough to justify a month-by-month analysis of political opinion in the lead up period. But as a political junkie, I have to say that I'm suffering withdrawal symptoms and am in desperate need of a regular fix. I'd like to think I'm not alone.

It's probably fair to say that there is a general consensus that Wales is not as well served as it could be in terms of either informing or measuring public opinion on social and political issues. From this report a few weeks ago, it seems likely that the Assembly's Communities, Equality and Local Government Committee will launch an inquiry into the state of the Welsh media in September. This is long overdue and badly needed.

In this respect, it's worth noting that it is newspapers that are largely responsible for commissioning opinion polls in the UK as a whole; but that in Wales—probably because we do not have a strong print media of our own—the broadcast media have had to step in to fill the gap. It was good while it lasted, and if it had proved to be sustainable on a long-term basis there wouldn't now be a problem. But it wasn't sustainable. Therefore we need to look seriously at other ways of filling that gap.

Over the past few years I've been following the situation in Catalonia and Euskadi, and these two countries provide us with examples of how this problem could be solved.

For example the Generalitat, the Government of Catalunya, has set up the Centre d'Estudis d'Opinió, which conducts a comprehensive survey of public opinion four times each year as the Baròmetre d’Opinió Política. The sample size is 2,500 and the survey covers a wide range of socio-political questions including what issues people consider most important, what media they use to obtain information, and their opinions of political parties. Euskadi produces a similar EuskoBarómetro, but twice a year and with a sample size of 1,200. I particularly like the Catalan version, and would recommend that people look through the latest survey to see the range of questions asked. It is much more than, "If there were an election tomorrow, who would you vote for?" Cut and paste the text from the pdf into Google Translate if any of the questions are unclear. That's what I do.

There is no reason why the Welsh Government should not use public money to set up something similar in Wales. It would serve a number of purposes: it would give everybody interested in politics and public policy a much better idea of how people in Wales see certain issues; it would help both political parties and other organizations to formulate better policies that are more relevant to what people in Wales want; and it would help stimulate a more informed public debate in the media.

Political debate in Wales is too shallow, often consisting of assertions made without any real grounds for support followed by knee-jerk reactions from all the usual suspects. Our media in Wales might well be weak, but perhaps the uncomfortable truth is that we've only got the media that our current level of public debate and involvement deserves. How can we expect our level of public debate to become more mature or our national media to grow stronger without giving them something much more solid to feed on?

HTV fails

2011-08-12T23:59:00.000+01:00

It was sad to read that the second American attempt to build a plane capable of reaching anywhere in the world within an hour has failed.

Falcon HTV-2 is lost in bid to become fastest ever plane

It makes you wonder what the purpose of such an aircraft might be. Back in the sixties, there was a very obvious need for such a vehicle as International Rescue raced to save lives in any part of the world.

I'm sure the Americans must have something similar in mind. I mean, what other useful purpose could such an aircraft possibly serve?

And it does say something that a small, independent island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean should have succeeded in something that a large nation like the United States just can't seem to manage.

Think what effect a flotilla of them could have.

The unambitious plans of Simon Thomas

2011-08-11T23:59:00.004+01:00

I was catching up with a bit of news today and noticed that Simon Thomas had made a speech about renewable energy at the National Eisteddfod last week. The details are here:

Galw am Gymru 'hunangynhaliol' erbyn 2030

Put it through Google translate if you need to, but in essence he was calling for Wales to be self-sufficient in electricity from renewable sources by 2030.

As I explained in this post last month, Wales is already on course to produce more than all the electricity we need from renewable sources long before 2030. We will reach that milestone when the Round 3 windfarms off the coast of Wales in the Bristol Channel and Irish Sea are operational. The Atlantic Array in the Bristol Channel is set for completion in 2016; the windfarms in the Irish Sea zone are a little further behind, but I would guess they'll be producing electricity by 2020.

The energy plans of the previous Welsh Government, outlined in March 2010, were:

Based on Wales’ natural advantages in areas such as wind and marine renewable resources, our aim will be to renewably generate up to twice as much electricity annually by 2025 as we use today.

A Low Carbon Revolution, March 2010

OK, maybe "up to" twice is a little vaguer than I'd like, but the target is still a lot more ambitious than what Simon is calling for. Is he even aware that this target exists, and that it was Plaid Cymru and Labour together that set it?

And to cap it all, even the Tories have more ambitious plans for renewable energy production in Wales than Simon does. Their manifesto for the Assembly elections in May said they:

... aim to produce 100% of our energy needs from renewable sources by 2025. We will aim to achieve 70% delivery by 2020.

Welsh Conservative Manifesto, 2011

But to be honest, I really don't think the Tories understood what they were promising. In rough terms electricity accounts for about a third of the total energy we consume. They probably meant 100% of our electricity needs by 2025, rather than our total energy needs. But even so, this is still more than Simon is calling for.

Bless you, Simon, but you need to be much more on the ball than this. Wales has huge renewable energy resources, and exporting the electricity we don't need will earn us huge revenues if we have control over them. You're right about that, but these resources are being developed much more quickly than you think.

Struggling with Statistics

2011-08-06T18:49:00.009+01:00

Whenever I see a statistic quoted—or at least one that appears implausible—my first reaction is to ask where it's from and whether it's being used in the right way. So that's exactly what I did when I saw this claim by S4C's new chairman, Huw Jones, at the start of an article on the IWA website yesterday.

Welsh broadcasters struggle with adverse statistics

S4C is working out its future against a backdrop of Wales suffering a net loss of 3,000 Welsh speakers every year ...

Click on Wales, 5 August 2011

Where does this number come from? A quick Google found this article by Siôn Jobbins, in which he says:

A Welsh Language Board Statistical Trends presentation in 2004 (which is on their website) estimated that among the Welsh-speaking community the number of deaths at 6,500 and out migration to England at 5,200 outran the number of children born to Welsh-speaking homes or raised Welsh-speaking plus immigration of children into Wales (from England mostly) by 3,000. These aren’t precise figures and are maybe skewed towards the more western, Welsh-speaking parts of Wales to the detriment of the east. Having said that, the presentation calculated that the Welsh language community is running at an annual deficit of 3,000 a year.

Daiaspora – Cambria Magazine, September 2007

That presentation was produced by Hywel Jones and can be downloaded from here. This is the relevant diagram from it:

The very first thing to note is that the net loss of 3,000 Welsh speakers relates to fluent Welsh speakers only, not the total number of Welsh speakers. Huw Jones is therefore painting a blacker picture of the difficulties facing S4C than is warranted from the source he is quoting. The other statistics he quotes may well be correct, but that one definitely wasn't.

In general terms, this survey shows that 57% of those that speak Welsh (i.e. described themselves that way in the 2001 census) consider themselves fluent. But we can be more precise about the figures for children.

By a welcome coincidence, the set of statistics which has a direct relevance to how fluent children are in Welsh was highlighted by Tory AM Suzy Davies only this week, although the figures she was quoting were in fact released last year:

Davies: Pupils’ Welsh fluency levels "unchanged" since 1986

But even though the figures she was quoting are correct, she too was using them wrongly by making a direct comparison between 1986-87 and 2009-10. This is because the assessments of whether a child is able to speak Welsh, and whether they can speak it fluently, were made by teachers prior to 2002-03 but by parents from then on. Suzy Davies' press release didn't mention it at all. Let's be charitable and assume that she wasn't aware of the change and wasn't knowingly trying to mislead anybody. Kudos to Tom Bodden for picking this up in the Daily Post, though without making any comment on how this change was significant.

The percentages were actually going up fairly steadily year by year, but the change in the assessment method produced a sudden reduction in the figures. The figures back as far as 1998-89 are available here and here on the StatsWales site. These are the figures for primary schools:

1986-87 (teacher assessment)

Fluent at home ... 7.2%
Fluent, but not at home ... 5.8%
Total fluent ... 13.0%
Can speak Welsh, but not fluently ... not known
Cannot speak Welsh ... not known

2001-02 (teacher assessment)

Fluent at home ... 6.2%
Fluent, but not at home ... 10.5%
Total fluent ... 16.7%
Can speak Welsh, but not fluently ... 31.2%
Cannot speak Welsh ... 52.0%

2003-04 (parental assessment)

Fluent at home ... 8.4%
Fluent, but not at home ... 4.5%
Total fluent ... 12.9%
Can speak Welsh, but not fluently ... 19.9%
Cannot speak Welsh ... 63.5%

2009-10 (parental assessment)

Fluent at home ... 7.6%
Fluent, but not at home ... 5.4%
Total fluent ... 13.0%
Can speak Welsh, but not fluently ... 24.0%
Cannot speak Welsh ... 62.9%

As I said when I commented on the figures in this post last year, they are not very reliable because parents who speak little or no Welsh are in no real position to assess how well their children can speak it, and it's a subjective judgement which varies according to how much Welsh is spoken in a particular area. Teacher assessment was more objective. But the figures can be used to track relative changes. The trends are that fewer children are growing up in Welsh speaking homes, but that the number of children who are fluent in Welsh as a result of being taught it in school has been going up constantly under both methods of assessment. I won't deny that the increase has been smaller than I'd like, especially in the last six years, but since 1986-87 the overall fluency figure has increased by more than a quarter.

It's also worth noting that the figures represent the whole range of primary school years. Obviously children from Welsh-speaking homes will be fluent from the beginning, but it can take a few years for those learning Welsh to become fluent; so an average of 13% will be few points lower in Year 1, and a few points higher in Year 6. This pattern continues into secondary school. If anyone is interested, I've put the information available from StatsWales into a spreadsheet which can be downloaded here. This makes it easier to compare the year on year changes.

Now the big question is how the StatsWales figures fit alongside the BIYG analysis from 2004. Those figures had shown an "input" of 2,100 children a year fluent at home and 3,000 a year becoming fluent at school: a total of 5,100 a year. The figures for 2009-10 for 11-15 year olds at secondary school are:

Fluent at home ... 15,311 = 3,062 a year
Fluent, but not at home ... 12,059 = 2,412 a year
Total fluent ... 27,370 = 5,474 a year
Can speak Welsh, but not fluently ... 65,099 = 13,020 a year
Cannot speak Welsh ... 81,445 = 16,289 a year

This shows that Hywel Jones' overall "input" figure for children fluent in Welsh was broadly correct, and is a few hundred higher now than it was before. But the StatsWales figures also show that the annual "input" of children who can speak Welsh is very much greater than the figure we get if we only include those who can speak Welsh fluently. I haven't done a calculation on whether the "losses" due to emigration from Wales and death are the same as they were a few years ago (perhaps it's best to wait until the results of the 2011 census are published next year) but if they are broadly the same, it's reasonably clear that the net increase in Welsh speakers will be at least 10,000 each year.

In summing up, I don't want to detract from Suzy Davies' point that our education system should be doing more than it currently is to ensure that more of our children are able to speak Welsh fluently. Even though the figures are in fact going up, they need to go up faster still.

But I am very disturbed by what Huw Jones has said, because far from there being a net loss of 3,000 Welsh speakers each year, there is in fact a net increase in Welsh speakers of more than three times that amount. Now I wasn't there to hear the whole debate, I just read what was reported on the IWA website and Huw might well have qualified his opening statement. But it strikes me that he has made a rather lame-brained and, to put it bluntly, misleading attempt to make out that S4C is somehow having to battle its way up a demographic hill. S4C's potential audience is in fact growing at a healthy rate year by year, not falling.

Don't get mad, get equal

2011-08-05T23:59:00.000+01:00

In some ways the RAF is a very prejudice-free organization. It is highly commendable that they should put a picture of a very obviously gay couple and their children on the page of their website that gives information about schools near RAF "Valley" at Rhosneigr:

Unfortunately, that admirable lack of prejudice doesn't extend as far as their attitude to Welsh. As we can read in this story, they may now have corrected this outrageous claim:

The Day School Allowance (North Wales) (DSA (NW)) is a unique opportunity for Service personnel to educate their children in North Wales.

DSA (NW) is available for the education of children of Service personnel based in North Wales who would otherwise be disadvantaged, academically and socially, by the bilingual teaching policy adopted within the Gwynedd and Isle of Anglesey Local Education Authorities. DSA (NW) is provided as an alternative to Boarding School Allowance (BSA) and assists towards the costs of the independent day schooling in the local area. In common with the principles adopted in other areas where English is not the teaching medium, no parental contribution is required towards the cost of school fees. Also travelling costs 'by the cheapest method appropriate' are also covered within this scheme.

Two independent day schools are available in Bangor, Hillgrove and St Gerard's and are both in use by Service families.

Thanks to Google's cache, I've saved a copy for all to see both as an mht file and as a jpg. The revised page is here.

But has removing the offensive sentence made any real difference? Of course not. The scheme is still being offered. And I have to say that I wouldn't want it to be ended, for there are much more important concerns the other way round.

What about air force personnel from Wales stationed in England or Scotland? Do they get a special allowance to continue their children's education in Welsh, or with at least some Welsh ... or are they expected to go to local schools where no Welsh is taught? What sort of financial help do they get to make sure their children can continue to be taught some Welsh in school?

The answer to that is so obvious that it hardly needs answering. Try searching the air force website for one word of Welsh. Yes, making that money available to one group of parents but not to parents in the opposite situation is a blatant example of the double standards that are still being applied to English and Welsh, but we must be cleverer than to say that this allowance is wholly inappropriate and needs to be stopped. Look at it the other way: if the air force is prepared to pay this sort of money so that some children can avoid any exposure to Welsh, it is better that we fight for similar sums of money to be made available to ensure that children from Welsh families in the armed forces can get some teaching in Welsh if they are based outside Wales.

Now I don't expect there will be any schools outside Wales and close to army, navy and air force bases in which Welsh is taught; but what steps do the armed forces take to ensure that the children of personnel from Wales are able to maintain the standard of Welsh they would be taught if they were based in Wales? For I'm quite sure this is the standard they apply with regard to English. I'd have thought the armed forces would have some code of practice with regard to education, and Welsh needs to be addressed as part of it. Our politicians need to start asking questions to make sure it is being properly addressed.

As for answers, one way forward is to ensure that the Boarding School Allowance mentioned on the website is available for any armed forces personnel from Wales, but based outside Wales, to educate their children in Wales. This seems to be the only way to ensure that their children can get a Welsh-medium education.

Or, in much the same way as the Athrawon Bro service provides specialist Welsh language teaching once or twice a week for English-medium schools in Wales without the staff to do it for themselves, another possible solution would be for the same sort of service to be provided by a flying squad of Welsh teachers (Athrawon Hedfanog?) travelling between schools near bases outside Wales, backed up with interactive resources and video conferencing.

England's NHS IT system is at death's door

2011-08-03T11:33:00.001+01:00

After nine years of trying and failing, the Public Accounts Committee of the Commons has at last come to the point of admitting that the flagship policy to produce an electronic records system for the English NHS is unworkable.

Pull plug on NHS e-records – MPs

The Public Accounts Committee said mounting problems with the electronic records system were making the £7bn project "unworkable". The group said the scheme – aimed at reducing the use of paper files – was beset by delays and uncertainty. If it was stopped, the remaining budget could then be spent on a better system, they said.

E-records are part of the overall £11.4bn IT programme. The scheme was launched in 2002 with the aim of revolutionising the way the health service uses technology. It includes developments such as digital X-rays and fast internet connections.

Under the e-records scheme, every patient was to get an electronic file that could be used when they were treated in the NHS. The MPs said it was a "worthwhile aim, but one that has proved beyond the capacity" of government to deliver.

BBC, 3 August 2011

It's sad, because if the project had been approached differently it could have not only have been successful, but done at a much, much lower cost. For an example of how to do it better, they need only look to Wales.

A year or so back, when another of the UK Government's computerization projects (the LIBRA system for Courts) was floundering, I came across this article by Michael Cross in the Guardian:

A Welsh cure for a nation's ills

Obama should look across the Atlantic for the huge task of computerising the US health records – but not as far as England

... For a lesson in how to manage the programme, Obama might do well to look across the Atlantic. Not to the NHS in England, where a £13bn programme is this year reeling from its latest parliamentary battering, but to Wales.

Earlier this month, Edwina Hart, the Welsh assembly's health minister, approved a plan to extend a system called the Individual Health Record (IHR) across the country. The decision comes seven years after the equivalent announcement in England, but no one need apologise for the delay. The Welsh IT team says that, by eschewing political deadlines and working with the NHS rather than trying to impose technology, it has created an electronic medical record that is not only more useful than its English equivalent but will cost a fraction of the price.

The secret, says Gwyn Thomas, chief executive of the agency Informing Healthcare, is to listen to users.

The contrast with the gung-ho English programme, now enervated by contractual rows and political grandstanding, is graphic. In the latest report, the chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, Edward Leigh MP, said: "Essential systems are late, or, when deployed, do not meet expectations of clinical staff; estimates of local costs are still unreliable; and many NHS staff remain unenthusiastic."

Wales and England started off with the same goal – to make computerised medical records available where they are needed. However, the two countries went about it in wildly different ways.

In England, the NHS took it for granted that the right technology was available and that staff were enthusiastic about adopting it. The central challenge was seen to be procuring the technology on the best terms, and implementing it to timetable. This involved a series of billion-pound contracts to provide central services and to rip and replace hospital systems across five regions created solely for the IT programme. Tellingly, one of the programme's explicit aims was to double the proportion of the NHS budget spent on IT. In Wales, by contrast, there were no big procurements and virtually no new money. When Thomas took up his role in 2005, he decided to work with existing technology to make information available where doctors needed it. Everything would move incrementally, with the consent of all concerned.

This involved several radical departures. In England, a central "spine" is designed to carry a summary record of every patient. The Welsh IHR draws data directly from GP records, with sensitive data such as terminations removed. Patients are asked for consent every time their record is viewed – unlike in England, which initially assumed patients to have given consent unless they explicitly opted out.

The Guardian, 29 January 2009

Now I certainly don't want to give the impression that the Welsh system has been trouble free. It hasn't. Mistakes have been made, companies providing services have gone bust. But because the Welsh approach has been fundamenatally different from that of the UK government in Westminster, these difficulties did not derail the whole programme. For those who are interested, there is a series of progress reports here:

     Health Insider, 8 January 2009
     Health Insider, 21 January 2010
     The Guardian, 19 October 2010
     Health Insider, 20 December 2010

To me, as a "health outsider", the picture seems to be one of steady progress; each step being taken after consultation and with consent, and with feedback informing the next step. Though I'd welcome any comments from people who know the system better than I do.

The IT records programme for the English NHS was described by one MP as "one of the worst scandals in terms of wasting public money", and another said, "Trying to create a one-size-fits-all system in the NHS was a massive risk and has proven to be unworkable."

It's timely illustration of the central conclusion of the research done by Adam Price and Ben Levinger as published in the Flotilla Effect. A reminder that being part of a large, over-centralized country brings inherent problems, and that smaller countries can more easily adapt to technological change by virtue of being smaller and more socially cohesive. We can tailor solutions to fit our own needs, rather than accept a one-size-fits-all solution from others.

Of course being able to make decisions for ourselves is no guarantee that we will make the right decisions. But if we compare our decisions about electronic NHS records in Wales with the unmitigated disaster of the decisions made by the UK government on behalf of England, it should give us all the confidence we need to press for more decision making responsibility in more areas to be transferred to Wales.

Peter Black and the Cofnod

2011-08-02T23:55:00.003+01:00

In his blog today, Peter Black made some comments about the Cofnod, the official record of what is said in the Assembly, that illustrate the major problem with the Assembly Commission's position on translating it.

As I'm sure most people reading this will know, the Assembly Commission, of which Peter is a member, made the decision only to translate contributions made in Welsh to English, but not vice-versa. A few weeks ago they published a paper outlining options for translating it, one of which was to use Google Translate to provide a rough translation that would then be corrected by professional translators.

I want to make it clear that I'm not particularly interested in some of the words used in the letter which prompted his comments. However I am concerned about what his response revealed about his attitude because of his membership of the Commission. He said:

... because 76% or so of the Welsh population do not speak the language then any contributions in Plenary by Welsh speakers need to be translated for the record.

But do these contributions need to be translated? As a record of proceedings the Cofnod would be perfectly complete without any translation, either way. If anyone happened to want a version in the other language, they could get a translator to translate it for them ... or even, dare I say it, cut and paste the original into Google Translate and get the results for themselves.

However I think it is a very good idea for the Assembly to translate it, for these reasons: it obviously saves a lot of time and duplication of effort to translate it just once rather than for everybody to get their own translation made; and more importantly, it means there is one official version, not a few dozen that are more or less the same but with lots of minor differences. Sure it costs money, but I think it's money well spent.

So why does it only apply one way? Peter's rather tortured double negative shows his lack of clear thinking. He says:

I am not saying that this is not the situation in reverse. In principle I support a fully bilingual record but it is at this point that priorities have to be applied.

But why do priorities have to be applied "at this point"? In particular, why does the greasy slide from it being a matter of "principle" to it being a matter of "priorities" come after the decision to translate from Welsh to English has been made, but before taking the decision to translate from English to Welsh? If you treat both languages equally the decision must be to translate either both ways or not at all.

There are good reasons for wanting a translation from English to Welsh ... and in fact they are exactly the same as the reasons for doing it the other way, especially when someone is writing about, reporting or discussing what was said in a Welsh language setting: whether this is on-air, on the internet, in a newspaper, in a debate in the village hall or in a discussion in the pub. Yes, just as with those who want an English translation, it's perfectly possible for people who want a Welsh version to get a translation made or to do it for themselves. But why does it need to be done dozens of times when it could be done just once, and isn't it better to have one official version rather than dozens of different ones? It cuts both ways.

The blind spot in Peter's thinking is obvious. He and the Commission he is part of consider translation from Welsh to English as an unquestionable "given". It doesn't even enter their heads to question whether it is needed or not, nor even to take the same compromise position that it's somehow important in principle ... but only if we can afford it. For Peter and his colleagues translation from Welsh to English manages to be important in principle ... irrespective of how much it costs.

Now if I wanted to, I could take his rather fatuous argument and say that the money saved by not making translations from Welsh to English could also be better used in developing the language across Wales. But putting it that way only serves to show how silly an argument of that sort is. Or I could take his equally silly remark that:

"decisions taken in support of the Welsh language ... have to be balanced against competing demands for that money"

... and point out that if translating from English to Welsh is considered to be a decision "taken in support of the Welsh language" then translating from Welsh to English must equally be described as a decision "taken in support of the English language". Neither is true. The money is spent to make the workings of the Assembly as transparent and easy to access as possible, to as many people as possible, irrespective of the language used.

Oriel Mostyn

2011-07-30T12:41:00.000+01:00

The remodelled Oriel Mostyn in Llandudno has won Ellis Williams the Gold Medal for Architecture at this year's National Eisteddfod.

The handsome but hardly spectacular façade of the original building does little to prepare you for the extraordinary dynamics of the new space inside. There are some words about it here, but the pictures tell you what words can't. These are from David Roberts Photography:

The M4 relief road has not yet been built

2011-07-28T17:51:00.002+01:00

I suppose that any incident that closes the section of the M4 through the Brynglas tunnels is like a red rag to those few people who still want to see a new motorway built on the Gwent Levels parallel to the M4, and I must thank Oggy Bloggy Ogwr for repeating the points I made before in this post about why it was such a bad idea and why the Welsh Government was right to reject it in 2009.

But I would emphasize one point, which is that there is a problem on that section of the M4, and that a relief road is needed both to provide a better alternative for local traffic that passes through Newport and to increase the resilience of the M4 on the rare occasions when it is closed because of an accident. However, there is all the difference in the world between a relief road and a new parallel motorway.

When Ieuan Wyn Jones made the decision not to proceed with the new motorway, he also made the decision to improve the Southern Distributor Road and the road serving the Llanwern steelworks in order to provide this much needed alternative, as shown below. Click the map for an enlarged version.

As yet these improvements haven't been made, we are still in the process of consultation. But when these improvements have been implemented, this relief road will provide an alternative which will very much reduce the impact and delays resulting from the sort of closure we have just seen.

The WMES Annual Report

2011-07-25T16:55:00.002+01:00

On Friday, the Welsh Government published its first annual report on the Welsh-medium Education Strategy:

It was strange that nearly all the reports in the media focused on the fact that there was a target of 30% of seven year olds being taught in Welsh by 2020, almost as if this was some sort of surprise. But this target, and the intermediate target that the figure should be 25% by 2015, is nothing new. What is much more critical is how much progress has been made towards achieving the targets, and the annual report focuses on this.

Last week, in this post, I commented on the numbers that now attend Welsh-medium schools. The numbers in Welsh-medium (and dual stream and transitional) primary schools have risen by just 0.5%—from 23.06% to 23.56% in the past two years—and this rate of increase would be nowhere near enough to meet the target.

However the numbers in WM schools are not an exact reflection of the numbers that are educated in Welsh. A more accurate measure is the number that are assessed in Welsh as a first language, and this is the basis of the WMES targets. On this measure, it's encouraging to note that the percentage has risen much faster, from 21.0% in 2009 to 21.8% in 2010. If this rate of increase were to be maintained, the targets would probably be met.

Now of course the Welsh Government could point to this as evidence that good progress is being made, but I would sound a note of warning. The discrepancy between the percentage in WM education (23.56%) and those being assessed in Welsh as a first language (21.8%) is largely a result of the fact that a significant number of smaller, traditionally WM schools have had rather patchy WM provision. What appears to have happened is that these schools have inceased the number of assessments in Welsh as a first language, and it is this which accounts for the bulk of the 0.8% rise between 2009 and 2010.

But this is a "soft target", because it represents an improvement in what is happening within WM schools. It might well be possible to get every child in a WM school assessed in Welsh, but the numbers being assesed in Welsh can never realistically be greater than the numbers in WM schools. In other words there is a structural problem which can only be solved by increasing the number of WM places available, which in most local authorities will mean increasing the number of WM schools. Unless we concentrate on this, there will be no chance of us meeting the 25% target in 2015 or the 30% target in 2020. As the potential to build new schools has been severely curtailled as a result of the Welsh Government scrapping all the work done to date on the remainder of the 21st Century Schools project, there will be no choice other than to convert existing EM schools to WM in order to meet the targets. That is a bullet that must be bitten.

One other thing I found interesting in the report was this graph comparing the percentages being assessed in Welsh by local authority in 2000 and 2010:

Gold stars to Torfaen, Monmouthshire, Cardiff, Swansea and Pembrokeshire for some good increases. Swansea's increase is a surprise to me. Black marks to Neath Port Talbot and Wrecsam for managing to preside over falls rather than increases; and to places like Ynys Môn, Ceredigion, Fflintshire and Blaenau Gwent which have only marginally increased their provision.

As most of us will know, Blaenau Gwent has just been relieved of its responsibilities for its failure in education generally, and I can't help but think that its failure with regard to WM provision is symptomatic of its wider failings. But isn't transferring responsibility for education in Blaenau Gwent to a task force from Neath Port Talbot a case of the blind leading the blind?

What about the other half?

2011-07-23T16:21:00.001+01:00

The news that half of the revenue from the marine part of the Crown Estate is to be given to coastal communities is a significant step in the right direction, and I think we should give the ConDem government in Westminster some credit for that.

The most significant aspect of the decision is that this money will be distributed within the country from which the revenues were generated, although in the case of Scotland the Highlands and Islands and the remainder of Scotland will be treated separately. The total revenue from the marine part of the Crown Estate was £47.4m last year, and this table from the Treasury press release shows the breakdown:

Wales ... £2.3m (4.9%)
England ... £36.4m (76.8%)
Northern Ireland ... £0.9m (1.9%)
Scotland, Highlands and Islands ... £3.7m (7.8%)
Rest of Scotland ... £4.1m (8.6%)

UK total ... £47.4m

It's also interesting to note the breakdown of that revenue by activity:

Dredging ... £15.5m (32.7%)
Coastal ... £14.3m (30.2%)
Cables/pipelines ... £11.5m (24.3%)
Renewables ... £3.5m (7.4%)
Aquaculture ... £2.6m (5.5%)

Crown Estate Annual Report, 2011

As we can see, renewables currently accounts for a quite a small percentage of the marine revenue, but this will increase dramatically as the next round of offshore windfarms is developed.

Previously the Crown Estate had operated a Marine Communities Fund worth between £500,000 and £600,000 a year, which I'm sure they thought was very generous. The new Coastal Communities Fund will distribute forty times more of the money, and I'm sure the Tories and LibDems think that they are now being even more generous.

But when you go into a pub and order a pint of beer, what would you think of a landlord who drank half of it himself and then gave you the half empty glass? Are we expected to thank him for only drinking half of it?

It's very easy to be "generous" with someone else's money. The issue of principle is that the revenue generated from leasing and granting various rights for activities in Welsh waters doesn't belong to anyone other than ourselves. It should be for us to set the terms on under which our marine resources are are used, and what the revenue generated will be used for.

So let's give the Tories and LibDems in Westminster some credit for not drinking the whole pint and leaving us with just the dregs, which is what Labour had done when they were in power there. Acknowledging the principle that revenue from marine resources should rightly be apportioned to the country where that revenue is generated is a big step in the right direction, and has set a precedent which will make the remaining steps that much easier.

A Senior Labour Source

2011-07-23T13:56:00.000+01:00

It appears that a "senior Labour source" has told Martin Shipton that there's something abnormal about a person who uses both Welsh and English.

Labour slate 'Welsh only' AM for using English in Assembly business

What the story doesn't make clear is that this source is very senior indeed ... 65 million years old.

Geraint and Gwyneth speak out

2011-07-21T03:33:00.010+01:00

At last year's Eisteddfod, it was announced that a new synthetic voice capable of reading Welsh text and converting it to speech had been developed by a Polish company called Ivona. However it was at that stage only a demonstration rather than a fully working product. I've checked a few times since then to see if it had been developed further, and I'm pleased to say that it has. There is now a male and a female voice, and as an example of how they sound I've taken the text from a story on the BBC's Newyddion site and recorded it in each voice:

Ysgol newydd: Pryder am y Gymraeg yn Nyffryn Tywi

Dywed rhieni yn Nyffryn Tywi na fydd ysgol uwchradd newydd yn ardal Ffairfach, Llandeilo, yn bodloni'r galw am addysg cyfrwng Cymraeg. Bydd yr ysgol newydd yn cael ei hagor yn 2015, a bydd ysgolion Tregib (Llandeilo) a Phantycelyn (Llanymddyfri) yn cau.

Dywed rhai rhieni fod angen ysgol sy'n dysgu'r rhan fwyaf o bynciau, ac eithrio gwyddoniaeth, drwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg. Ond statws 2B fydd yr ysgol newydd, lle mae yna ddewis i dderbyn yr holl wersi drwy gyfrwng y Saesneg, neu 80% drwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg.

Yn ôl rhai rhieni dylid sefydlu ysgol categori 2A, fel Ysgol Maes yr Yrfa, lle mae 80% o'r pynciau yn cael eu dysgu drwy'r Gymraeg. Bydd yn rhaid i deuluoedd sydd am i'w plant gael addysg 2A anfon eu plant i Ysgol Maes yr Yrfa yng Nghefneithin.

Dywed Dr Hywel Glyn Lewis, darlithydd mewn dwyieithrwydd, y dylai Cyngor Sir Caerfyrddin ystyried gweithio ar y cyd gyda Chyngor Powys a sefydlu ysgol 2A ar gyfer yr ardal. Byddai hynny o bosibl yn golygu gwasanaethu ardaloedd Pontsenni a Thecastell yn ne Powys. Pryder Dr Lewis yw y byddai plant sy'n mynychu ysgolion cynradd cyfrwng Cymraeg yn colli'r iaith drwy fynychu ysgolion uwchradd lle nad oes darpariaeth ddigonol.

Mae rhieni ardal Llanymddyfri hefyd yn anhapus fod yr ysgol newydd wedi ei lleoli yn ardal Llandeilo. Dywed ymgyrchwyr y dylid wedi dewis ardal sydd rhwng Llandeilo a Llandysul.

BBC, 20 July 2011

OK, it's not absolutely perfect, but it's miles ahead of previous attempts to get a natural sounding synthetic Welsh voice. If you want a comparison, try using the "Darllenwch y dudalen" feature on say this page of the Bwrdd yr Iaith website. Highlight some text and click "darllen testun".

If anyone wants to try out the Ivona voices, just put some text into the box on this page, then choose either Geraint or Gwyneth from the drop down menu to read it out. They'll even read things in English, but with a Welsh accent. That's cool.

The voices are still beta versions and not yet for sale, though I expect they soon will be, maybe in time for the Eisteddfod. When they are, the personal version of the programme should be able to read Welsh text from any computer application or web page. But I hope we will also see the BBC, Golwg360, councils and private companies install a button which will read the text on their Welsh pages automatically.

Round and round in circles

2011-07-20T13:19:00.002+01:00

The dithering and directionless nature of the new Welsh Government was illustrated perfectly when they decided last month to put the west Wales badger cull on hold pending a review, even though nothing had changed since the previous decision to go ahead.

When in coalition with Plaid Cymru, Labour could leave it to Plaid ministers like Elin Jones to take tough decisions like this. But it's hard to escape the conclusion that we now have a government that aren't capable of making such decisions on their own, and that they'll always need someone to hold their hand.

So, as we can read here, they have now turned to Professor Chris Gaskell to lead a review panel. But the question he must be asking is why on earth he's being asked to do something that he's already done ... and done more than once.

For example, there seems to be a sense of "how many times do we have to say the same thing over and over again" in this letter he wrote in his capacity as Chair of the DEFRA Science Advisory Council in December 2007:

It is worth stating at the outset that in the absence of new data, and we have seen none, nor has any been presented in the King report, the SAC sees no rationale in changing the advice on the current science base for bovine TB that it has already given to your predecessor as CSA. The subsequent debate would seem to us to be more around the policy options that may arise from these observations, rather than the evidence itself.

However, it is the opinion of the SAC that despite the alternative presentations of the implications of the ISG results, there is substantial agreement about the basic scientific evidence.

Specifically, in relation to the potential effectiveness of badger culling, there appears to be agreement on the following basic points between King and the ISG:

•  That simultaneous, coordinated and repeated culls of badgers in large, geographically distinct and isolated areas where there is a high prevalence of bTB in cattle should lead to a modest reduction in outbreaks in cattle within the area culled.

•  That culling badgers would lead to an increase in bTB breakdowns in cattle in the surrounding areas (“the edge effect”).

•  That culling of badgers on its own, would not eradicate bTB in cattle.

However such agreement presumes that:

•  Any culled area is sufficiently large for the benefits to offset the detrimental edge effects that follow culling. This would, in the opinion of SAC, mean culling areas preferably of at least several hundred square kilometres.

•  That natural, or ‘hard’ boundaries such as rivers and motorways at the edges of culling areas might assist in reducing the edge effect although, in practice, impermeable boundaries would be, in the opinion of SAC, difficult to achieve.

Letter to DEFRA, December 2007

Then, in only April of this year, another group he was part of said almost exactly the same thing, as recorded in this note.

It is ridiculous for politicians to think that if they keep asking the same questions over and over, they will magically get a different answer. And although I sure that Chris Gaskell and the others on the new review panel will be paid well for their work, I can't help wondering whether they might prefer to get on with other things rather than waste yet more taxpayers' money.

The science is clear enough, but policies must be decided by politicians ... or at least by politicians who are prepared to take the hard decisions. John Griffiths is no Elin Jones.

Another BBC misquote

2011-07-17T20:53:00.002+01:00

I must admit to not having much time for navel-gazing programmes about what being Welsh is, but I read this report about today's Eye on Wales radio programme and saw that Adam Price was being quoted:

Former Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price believes the language issues "cuts both ways".

"It creates a deeper sense of national identity and gives us a tangible source of distinctiveness," said Mr Price. "On the other hand, it does divide us between two communities."

That sounded a little odd, so I listened to the programme on iPlayer and found that what he actually said was much fuller than that. This is the relevant extact:

Yet the BBC not only puts its very edited version in direct quotation marks, but actually manages to reverse the point he had made by missing out the "in some people's eyes" from:

"On the other hand it does divide us, in some people's eyes, between two communities ..."

There's something reassuring about the BBC's editorial bias. Like an ugly factory on a hillside, it would be quite a shock to wake up one morning and find it had disappeared.

	Wales East	West	Slovenia West	East

1997	18,900	13,400	14,900	10,700
1998	19,800	13,300	15,800	11,300
1999	21,000	13,500	17,100	12,100
2000	22,400	14,700	18,000	12,800
2001	23,900	15,000	18,800	13,200
2002	24,300	15,900	20,100	14,100
2003	25,100	15,900	20,900	14,300
2004	26,200	16,800	22,500	15,500
2005	26,100	17,700	23,600	16,300
2006	26,800	18,300	24,900	17,100
2007	27,500	18,200	26,600	18,200
2008	27,100	17,900	27,300	18,900

Growth	43.4%	33.6%	83.2%	76.6%