BBC BLOGS - Betsan's Blog
« Previous | Main | Next »

"Where YOU are"

Betsan Powys | 09:54 UK time, Wednesday, 26 August 2009

That moment near the end of the 10 o'clock news where Huw Edwards says "goodbye for now" because it's time for the news "where you are" makes a friend of mine wince, throw something at the telly and bend my ear whenever I bump into him.

He was born up in the north of England and now lives and works for the NHS in Wales. In fact he's a pretty crucial bit, now, of the NHS in Wales and has been for some time - a bit that's about taking big lumps out of small babies and saving their lives. He's interesting to talk to about health policy in Wales and there's no way that devolution has passed him by. He thinks about it because he feels the impact of it on his job every day. There are days when he likes it more than others.

However when Huw gears up for that handover, he squirms.

I don't think it's just the 'bye for now' bit. It's the 'where you are' bit that really gets him. Yes, he knows Huw is right because what you're about to get is indeed the news where you are and yes, he does want to know what's going on where he lives and works but does Huw HAVE to put it like that?

Let's face it, I say, isn't is possible that you hate it because it brings out that part of you that thinks devolution has not improved patient care, that militates against it and that - sorry about this mate - just needs to get over it. Or leave the room at 10.26pm.

He came to mind yesterday during a debate on how we in Wales cover the General Election. The question posed wasn't a brand new one but it's a more pertinent one than ever given the extra powers granted by the Government of Wales Act 2006.

Dilemma: what happens when a whole programme, being broadcast across the UK during the General Election campaign, is dedicated to - let's say - health? You can picture it. Candidates from all parties standing at lecterns, each being given a chance to spell out where they stand on all sorts of contentious issues relating to health policy. The presenter will be putting their feet to the fire while making it clear that these issues relate to 'England only' every now and then because he or she will have been told to. The candidates will all be fighting seats in England. Health is devolved so extending an invitation to candidates standing anywhere else would make little sense.

So should the programme be broadcast in Wales or not?

1. Yes. As long as the presenter makes it clear the issues being debated relate only to England and that how these candidates - if elected - vote will have no direct effect on health policy "where you are" in Wales. Why not? Just because you live in Wales it doesn't mean you're not interested in debates across the border in England and want to be properly informed about them.

2. Yes but the Welsh Health Minister (and Ministers from other devolved nations) should be given a lectern too and a chance to chip in on why some issues are dealt with very differently here. They could give practical examples of where a different approach has led and add to the context/debate. Just because you live in England it doesn't mean you're not interested in debates across the border in Wales and want to be properly informed about them.

3. No. It's not relevant to Wales. Showing it here would just confuse voters at a time when being clear about which policies would affect their everyday lives is crucial. They will be informed about it anyway if they read newspapers, watch network news programmes, listen to the radio, read online news reports etc.

4. No but why not broadcast a programme here with candidates standing in Wales? Voters wants to learn about their attitude to health policy even if the way they vote in Westminster doesn't directly impact on constituents in Wales.

Getting this one right? Tough, whatever you make of "where-you-are wincers" as I'll dub them. So a hint: contributions like 'None of the above - show a re-run of the Grand Slam winning match against France' aren't helpful, no matter where you are.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 12:06pm on 26 Aug 2009, John Henry wrote:


    We vote to send MPs to Westminster, the electorate have a right to know exactly what is happening in the United Kingdom, particularly the differences caused by devolution.

    It would be a good time for the electorate to judge the performance of the WAG against Westminster, a good time to judge the Assembly Members against their Westminster counterparts, A good time to ask whether Wales is getting a good deal.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 12:57pm on 26 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    Betsan...


    I would have far more sympathy with your NHS pal if we all did not have to suffer this rubbish news diversiveness.

    What does it matter to people in Gwent what occurs in Camarthen, or why should an event in Flint be of interest to someone in Powys or Bleanafon?

    All these hived off bits of the UK, Wales, Scotland, NI, produce news, which, in all honesty, is not 'where you are' but is something
    'slightly' rather less than UK wide items.

    In the not too distant future, once digital has taken over completely, I hope the government will 'free up' a small slice of the analogue bandwidth for true local TV output. Low power output,medium resolution reception.
    In fact, I am already gearing up for it, my studio is already under construction. Most of the equipment is to hand, and there is a substantial local interest.

    If this does become allowed, then maybe we will be able to truly say "...the news where you are..." or will I have to do a 'Radio Caroline' on a mobile basis, to evade the detector van, in order to bring TV to my LOCAL area.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 1:02pm on 26 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    PS to message previous...


    ".....a bit that's about taking big lumps out of small babies..."


    Considering the perceived obesity problem in young women, should that not be read as....

    '.....taking small babies out of big lumps?......'

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 2:52pm on 26 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    This is of a West Lothian-ish nature.

    If our MPs can influence Westminster policy (as they do) then at that level it matters that those who elect them can know what their votes do, albeit to other people.

    The various options and contradictions pointed out highlight the need to move the settlement onwards to a more sustainable footing. Once matters such as health are devolved to Wales, then Welsh MPs ought to be relieved of their ability to vote on these matters at Westminster.

    A two tiered voting system (English MPs only to be allowed to vote on English only affairs) would be a start in addressing such anomalies. It would make for a somewhat dualistic existence, but then we live in somewhat dualistic times.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 3:52pm on 26 Aug 2009, John Henry wrote:


    #4

    You refer to the English question, how do the electorate encircled by the pseudo-Celtic fringe achieve a fair representation, these are the 50 million people without the pseudo-Celtic fringe advantage gained through the Barnett formula.

    There is only one matter for debate, the matter of the British Isles, the United Kingdom, it is time a message was given to the Nationalist minority, shape up or ship out, give the Welsh and Scot separatists an opportunity to carve out out a corner, and let them be gone for good. The sooner the better.


    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 4:05pm on 26 Aug 2009, Old_Miwl wrote:

    An interesting problem. In the short term, I'd be inclined to have a "Wales only" programme (option 4) which would ensure that prospective MPs/Ministers speak about what they really can do, rather than making promises about subjects they cannot deliver on. It would also mean far more effective scrutiny of the 40 MPs we send to Westminster, and give them a chance to talk about things they can deliver for their constituents.
    Of course, a longer term solution would be a federal type structure where all consituent countries of the UK would have the same powers devolved. That way, MPs would be responsible for the same things all across the UK and the same programme could be aired everywhere without misleading anyone.
    A good parallel would be the USA, where states are pretty much equal in what they do, and clear powers are reserved to the Federal government. If you vote for your US Senator in Colorado, Texas or Vermont, they will be responsible for the same things.

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 5:00pm on 26 Aug 2009, nomorepowers wrote:

    ..... and it was said True Wales are scare-mongering by using the phrase slippery slope to independence.


    Local to many people in Wales is Bristol, Hereford, Liverpool, London etc. I'm sure many will agree Gwynnedd is not local to people in Gwent.

    Such inward thinking can only lead to less choice and poor quality services for many people living in Wales.


    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 5:06pm on 26 Aug 2009, Bryn_Teilo wrote:

    You have drawn attetion to a fundamental issue. Essentially its concerned with the democratic process. Media coverage in the UK adds to the significant democratic deficiency. At the heart of the problem is the fact that the UK consists of four nations, one of which is dominant in size. England dominates the press and the media. Parties which canvass for support only in one of the smaller nations are at a great disadvantage over those unionist parties that seek support from the entire UK. The unionist parties get news and current affairs coverage in in all the nations of the UK seven days a week. Their party leaders and spokesmen air their views and policies frequently. The 'nationalist' parties on the other hand get a share of coverage only in their respective nations, which the other three unionist parties get as well.
    That isn't democratic at all.

    The BBC has been the worst culprit. Wales has largely been ignored, 'the invisible nation', in its UK coverage. Someone above pointed out that the people of Wales need to know what is going on in the NHS in England. He omits to mention that the people of England don't get to hear much if anthing of what goes on in Wales, whereas we get to know all about government in England daily.

    The only way to solve the problem in a democratic way is to devolve the responsibilty for broadcasting to the nations so that we in Wales, for example, can decide what we want to see and hear on our tv screens and on the radio, and not have it decided by an English dominated quasi-governmental corporation in London.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 5:08pm on 26 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    5

    "Give the Welsh and Scot separatists an opportunity to carve out out a corner, and let them be gone for good. The sooner the better"

    Indeed!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 5:18pm on 26 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    6

    Other options of interest would be Australia and Canada. Again, there is the apportionment of powers and responsibilities at two levels, with a pretty clear understanding as to what does what and why.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 5:54pm on 26 Aug 2009, John Henry wrote:


    At #8 was written .... He omits to mention that the people of England don't get to hear much if anthing of what goes on in Wales,

    But they do, in contact with folk East of Offa's dyke I am reminded that we in Wales have a more benign NHS, you have free scripts they say. It is surprising how many know their pockets are regularly picked via Barnett to be spent at Cardiff Bay.

    If broadcasting were to be devolved, and the same effort were applied by WAG as applied to the Welsh Education, the majority would be forced to subscribe to Sky TV for worthwhile entertainment, you must remember people occasionally tune into SC4 to encounter the imaginative 1950's content.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 6:02pm on 26 Aug 2009, nomorepowers wrote:

    Can someone tell me why S4C is not a resounding success.

    Separatists have your LOCAL TV but make sure it is pay per view.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 7:34pm on 26 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    message 6....


    Let us examine the actuality of governance....


    99% of business across the UK is pretty well identical.

    The Scots have some regional differences due to having a marginally different legal set up.

    Wales does NOT have that difference, and therefore the difference between the governance's of Wales and England, both central and local, is almost undetectable.

    So where lies the claimed for, and perceived by the nationalists, difference between the Welsh and English system of government?

    Can it be that there is another language to consider?

    I would state ..Yes!, that IS the difference, and that is the ONLY difference.

    What laws are passed in Westminster are applicable to the rest of the UK, as are those from the EU in Brussels.

    But if given extended law raising powers, is it not likely that a gulf of legality will open up, which in turn will almost certainly create the need for some sort of border restrictions?

    We do not get much of it when we go to France,or anywhere else on the continent, because we have that vast border, the Channel to make damned sure we know we are totally out of Britain,

    How will the people take to the idea that one half of a village, or one side of a street operates different laws to the other?

    What will be the reaction, as is already the case in some small spots, when one person is treated differently to his neighbour, the NHS free 'scripts being a classic example, barely tolerated by the English at present, no doubt due to the belief in England, that they too will one day soon get free 'scripts.

    How will the English react to more laws that create serious rifts, maybe road traffic laws, or planning laws, and all the rest that may come about?

    What will that same villager say about his English half of the village having clear roads, while the Welsh half have a string of road humps to irritate.

    How will the next door neighbour react when English planners say it's OK to erect a new extension, but the guy next door, or further along the street, is refused, due to differences that have crept in to the planning laws between the two regimes? A scenario that will be drastically exacerbated if the Welsh guy speaks Cymraeg, and is therefore viewed as being favoured, rightly or wrongly, as the case may be.

    These are just the most obvious ones, just how deep will these new legal powers impact on friend and neighbour, or local authorities in England and Wales, just a few hundred metres apart?

    Just how long will it be for the new national establishment begin to demand a rigid border, a fenced barrier between the Severn and the Dee?
    so that their newly acquired legal powers can be enforced, without complaint from neighbours on either side of the, up to then, non barrier/border.
    A dedicated border, with posts manned 24/7, so the English and Welsh can be shown to be different 'nations' and must be kept apart for fear their differences will be detected as artificial.... how long will it take?


    I am all for leaving things as they were, take us to a referendum that asks for a clarification, from ALL, over our enhancing the Assembly/WAG, or removing it for the disaster is has been so far, and for the problems it will certainly generate in the future.

    As I began, if there were MAJOR differences, there may be a case for what is called for, but detectable differences? they are so minute as to be almost invisible,so there is NO need for the mess in Cardiff Bay, with all it has constructed since 1997.

    What differences there are, can be summed up as little more than the normal ones between adjacent localities, attempting to translate that into a 'national' context is simply asking for future trouble. That is why the Assembly is dangerous to the people of Wales, with or without the language cudgel in it's hands.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 7:57pm on 26 Aug 2009, West-Wales wrote:

    Bryn at 8
    You say we in Wales, for example, can decide what we want to see and hear on our tv screens and on the radio,

    Just who are "we" - the Welsh people or the 20% who support Plaid and the language activists.

    BBC Wales News and Politics programs do not have great viewing figures - S4C even less.
    How often are viewers frustrated because an important program on the UK BBC is dropped by BBC Wales replaced by a Welsh interest program, that is only of interest to a minority of Welsh people.

    What Mapexx says in #2 is true All these hived off bits of the UK, Wales, Scotland, NI, produce news, which, in all honesty, is not 'where you are' but is something 'slightly' rather less than UK wide items.


    But the thrust of Betsans comment relates to the Welsh NHS;
    Returnee at 4 Once matters such as health are devolved to Wales

    Health is one of the devolved powers and the Assembly track record is poor - Labour lost the 2007 Election because of their mishandling of Health, and the hospital closure programme.

    Things have not improved - today there has been another U turn over Kidney Cancer treatment.
    I do not agree with the NICE report, but Hart should not have implemented the proposals only to back track within hours when there was an outcry, typical of the confusion and management failure at the top.

    We have constant structural change, increasing Administrators and Bureaucracy, while medical and nursing staff declining and hospitals struggle to deliver to patients.

    Among other issues Stroke, Cancer, and Heart treatment programs are among the worst in Europe and far behind the rest of the UK.
    Tried to get an Ambulance recently??
    Remember the problems over Neurosurgery in North Wales and the decision (reversed after pressure) not to use Liverpool but travel to Cardiff instead.

    Currently Wales NHS is having to set aside half a billion pounds to pay for expected compensation claims.
    The main cause for failing to properly treat Patients is stated to be due to continual structural change and administration interference with medical treatment.

    Control of the Welsh NHS should be removed from the Assembly and handed back to the UK body, As it was prior to 1997 - we can have a Welsh NHS board to deal with the demographic problems specific to Wales, but procedures, guidelines and spending need to be set a UK level.

    The UK NHS isn't perfect but it's a great deal better than the mess the Assembly have created.

    Not paying the prescription charge is great, but that is just political spin and in no way offsets the cost in broken lives we have to pay, just to have the Assembly run our NHS.

    The NHS across the UK is in trouble a real debate is needed, on the best way forward - the Welsh model does not work.
    We need to get politics out of health and start to look at proposals that will provide what patients need - when they need it - free of charge.

    We should stop the political slagging off every time someone makes a suggestion, we need to debate and evaluate the proposal.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 8:00pm on 26 Aug 2009, Igotitallwrongsorry wrote:

    In another 20 years the Nationalist/Socialists will have "jamming" systems in place like North Korean to stop us welsh people finding out whats going on "over the border" as BBC Wales continually refers to england which we are still joined to as part of UK (or so I thought). You can see the "arrogance" of BBC Wales in that we might be "confused" about purely english matters being shown as if we havent got the nous to sort these matters out. Lets hope Cameron if he's got the guts allows tax breaks for people who are prepared to pay for private treatment and thereby reducing burden on NHS. This is what happens when you play the NATS game of seeking to "balkanise" the UK with the support of media and fellow travellers all hoping to be little dictators in wales.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 8:50pm on 26 Aug 2009, John Henry wrote:

    #14, West-Wales when you write .....

    Control of the Welsh NHS should be removed from the Assembly and handed back to the UK body, ....... guidelines and spending need to be set a UK level.

    I concur

    There is no difference between people resident East or West of Offa's Dyke, therefore there should be no difference in the treatment or service received in any part of the United Kingdom, in my opinion the only political finger in the NHS pie should be funding, and then with expert advice.

    In addition, this principle of difference should be applied to all devolved areas, and where no regional need can be acknowledged consideration be given to transferring the powers back to Westminster.

    This lack of difference between East and West of Offa's Dyke has spawned an activity unique to Wales, the make Wales different business, fully funded by WAG naturally.


    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 8:55pm on 26 Aug 2009, Jack_Wilkinson wrote:

    Whenever I see Gordon Devo Brown, I feel physically sick, especially when he spouts off on health and education!! Doesn't he realize how absurd he looks? This Scotch bloke discussing the English health service, when the English have no say in Scotland. Just read the British press, the English do not like it one little bit. I cannot wait for the General election, I want the idiots who broke up a cohesive United Kingdom, smashed. Imagine in Wales, if the horrendous amount of dosh spent on edifices of state, language enforcement and World wide embassies, was spent on..us?

    Before anyone chirps in, that it was the Conservatives who ordered compulsory Welsh lessons, it was only in areas where Welsh was widely spoken. Even then, it was never enforced with vigor, but quietly dropped as being counter productive.
    I'll repeat this, when David Davies was AM for Monmouthshire, he requested on several occasions, that the children of Monmouthshire, be excused Welsh lessons, as it was for them a completely alien tongue. John Griffiths, AM for Newport east, responded to one such request.....'It's because of the fact that the standard of Welsh is so dreadful in Monmouthshire schools. And, considering the growing importance of the language, lessons must not be dropped but intensified' This from a Newport AM, in a city that voted 65% no, to devolution? I'll let Rod Richards, explain everything about Conservative opposition to language enforcement. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/434738.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 9:38pm on 26 Aug 2009, Jack_Wilkinson wrote:

    How often are viewers frustrated because an important program on the UK BBC is dropped by BBC Wales replaced by a Welsh interest program, that is only of interest to a minority of Welsh people.

    Good point West-Wales, the most popular political program on the BBC, or any other channel is Question Time. In England, Scotland and N Ireland, it has up to now been broadcast simultaneously. Only Wales is different, it's on after Dragon's Eye, why is it, what with our World wide embassies, I get the feeling that our Llafur/ Plaid combo, has us closer to independence than we realize?

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 9:42pm on 26 Aug 2009, Old_Miwl wrote:

    Message 6
    I have no desire to get into a long debate (this is a thread that is supposed to be about broadcasting) so I'll just make a few points, and leave it at that.
    There is very little to deonte the Nevada/Utah or Colorado/New Mexico border. No fences, no checkpoints, no armed guards, no passport controls. There are signs welcoming you to the state, and in some cases welcome centres where you get free coffee and doughnuts. Each of these states has far more automony than would be the case if "Scottish style" powers were given to each of the countries of the UK.
    On my visits, I have detected no animosity between the people of these different states despite the large differences in taxation rates, public services and criminal law. Indeed, they seem to like the idea of having differences as they run their own affairs and accept that the people next door may do it differently. They seem to manage this without TV and radio jamming devices. I can't see any reason why such things would be needed in a UK with 4 develoved states.
    The majority of people in Wales recognise themselves as Welsh as well as British. Wales is a recognised unit (be it nation or country - within another country) as are Scotland and England and every poll that has been taken over the last 10 years has shown increasing support for some form of devolved government for Wales. Election results also back this up.
    Perhaps the difference in law between Wales and England isn't there, but whether it is or not, an increasing majority of people in Wales want some form of devolved government. That, and that alone is the justification.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 10:36pm on 26 Aug 2009, Jack_Wilkinson wrote:

    Message 19.
    Election results also back this up.

    Please, could you give substance to your claim? And, could you also explain what the Hell you're on about?

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 00:16am on 27 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    "In another 20 years the Nationalist/Socialists will have "jamming" systems in place like North Korean to stop us welsh people finding out whats going on "over the border"

    How?


    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 08:32am on 27 Aug 2009, Old_Miwl wrote:

    Message 20
    The result from the 2005 General Election shows that parties whose official policy is to either support the current settlement (Conservative, Labour) or extend it (Lib Dem, Plaid) polled 1,323,005 votes. The only 2 parties whose official line is to abolish the Assembly (UKIP, BNP) polled 21,900.
    Even if you move the Conservatives out of the pro devolution block, you still have 1,026,005 in favour. All other election results since 1997 show the same pattern.
    Now, I don't believe that people only vote based on their view of devolution (as I don't) but if all the opinion polls taken by the Assembly, All Wales Convention, BBC, Western Mail, Institute of Welsh Affairs etc were so wrong, don't you think it may have shown up somewhere by now?
    As to "what the hell you're on about" - I gave my opinion on the broadcast of a Wales only TV programme, and how I see a fairer more sustainable constitutional settlement. Mapexx asked what the "need" for devolution was as he saw nearly all governance across the UK as the same. I replied, because people want it that way, and that is my understanding of how a democracy is supposed to work.
    Does that clear it up?

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 09:49am on 27 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    13

    On which basis, Ireland is still a part of the UK.

    Something surely wrong here?

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 10:30am on 27 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    22

    Sadly, this blog appears to be contaminated by a BNP / UKIP mentality.

    Still those of us who believe in Welsh internationalism and a modern Wales in a modern world will cheerfuly carry on with our lives.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 10:49am on 27 Aug 2009, James Gibson-Watt wrote:

    Even if health is a devolved issue, what the Westminster Government and Parliament decides does matter to the people of Wales, because we get access to so much of our secondary and specialist healthcare in England. For example, people in central and much of south Powys have to travel to Hereford (in England) to get kidney dialysis, a journey for some of over 100 miles per day on three days a week on winding country roads. For a large proportion (maybe more than half) of the residents of Powys almost all of their secondary healthcare will be delivered at DGHs in England. So a healthcare debate at the GE will be very relevant to Wales.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 11:12am on 27 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    25

    That makes sense. It also demonstrates the fluidity of boundaries - in healthcare as in broadcasting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 12:17pm on 27 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    message 22....



    I really don't care how many say they want something, many would have capital punishment brought back, or not have to pay council taxes, or keep to the speed limits, all subjected to governmental decision making.
    Or beat child abusers to death in the streets, don't say it could not happen, it has.
    Individual, or group actions outside of Parliamentary law, is therefore intolerable, and allowing a serious minority to dictate to the majority, IS anti democratic, in fact, that is the way Wales is now operating, impaled on the pikestaff of a failed electoral system.

    The problem with your silly remark is this, we elect governments to do our thinking for us, we abrogate our individual right to decision making within the terms of that abrogation.

    THAT is what is called democracy, but you feel that because the number, a very small minority, by the way, out of the 60 odd millions in the UK, say they 'want' something, they should get it, just like that.

    Grow up.


    Now to another point made elsewhere...

    The various states in the US of A, all 51 of them, are, to all intents and purposes, self ruling entities, many years ago, and progressively, a few began the process of federalisation.

    In doing so, they have gradually become a very powerful federation. The USA.

    Wales has no such history. Wales HAS had a constructed border, known as Offa's Dyke, and should Wales be allowed to take itself away from the universal law regime that it presently lies under, as I have said before, schisms will occur that could well require a renewal of the Dyke, but in modern terms.
    It is already a bone of contention over the free prescriptions, further differences may well bring the need for a stricter border regime to be instituted and enforced.
    How about number plate recognition, or sat nav technology, being used to track your every move, so that crossing the border, be it actual or implied, will mean you are charged a transmission toll each and every time you leave or enter Wales?
    Not just on the two Severn crossings, but on every road the WAG will allow to remain open between Wales and it's neighbour.

    Please do not tell me it cannot be done. The east German regime showed that it could, and was, done.

    How about customs duty being charged on goods bought across the border, not allowed under EU law I know, but what is there to say an individualised Wales will gain EU membership anyway? That is just a 'hope' that may or may not become a fact.
    Wales will need to offer something substantial, other than a high level of unskilled unemployed, and a very large sick list.

    Cheaper labour than east European states maybe?

    How will the Assembly guarantee that? For sure, if they try it, the skilled will be off like a shot, to England and elsewhere, most have departed anyway, so where will Wales get it's collateral to present to the EU for membership?

    There are so many, at present, hidden trip up points, I for one am not prepared to set myself into the trap of testing for them.

    Nor, I believe, will the bulk of the Welsh people, once the have their eyes opened to what could easily be in store, should they foolishly opt for this independence lark, you lot are always on about.

    My advice is be very, very, wary how the matter is proceeded, as stated before, be aware of what you wish for, you may get it.

    On the subject of the United States of America, there are no 'devolved' differentials between one state and another, as they are, and were, from inception, self governing entities, latterly within the parameters of the federal establishment. And with, by the way, rights of secession, should the federal system no longer suit their individual requirements

    That is how they were individually created in the first place. We have never had such individual powers, or laws, at least not in the last 500 years or so, and I see absolutely no reason to alter the status quo, just to sate the ambitions, or unnecessary 'wants' based on false patriotism, and deliberately misinterpreted political statistics.

    What I do wish for though, is that right of secession, should devolution be found to be a worthless proposition, and the last ten years has not seen a very great amount to be either grateful for, or to be proud of.

    The States of America, became such individual entities a lot less time ago than Wales has been part of the British, or UK politico/legal system. So why attempt to justify your stance by reference to a system that is but a half the age of our own?

    Australia, even younger, but with a similar state and federal system, should we use that as a further example of our future?


    A straight case of that sin, envy, I suggest.

    And pride, being another sin of the Cymro element, which as everyone knows and understands, "cometh before a fall".

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 12:24pm on 27 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    message 23....

    My perverse obtuseness again I suppose, but what has Ireland to do with anything written in message 13?

    The whole was completely about the potential border differentials between Wales and England. Ireland was not mentioned at all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 1:52pm on 27 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    "And with, by the way, rights of secession,"

    You've said that before and was wrong then as well. US States cannot unilaterally secede - that's the difference between a Federation and a Confederation. Texas v White, US Supreme Court 1869.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 1:55pm on 27 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    27

    But Germany is a federal republic. This (as in the cases of Australia and Canada) fatally undermines the case you are trying to make.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 1:58pm on 27 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    28

    Ireland's place within the Union was for seven hundred years the same as that of Wales's. The unionist arguement with regards to Ireland was just the same in 1880-90 as with Wales today. This mentality (and what happened as a consequence of it) is crucial to understanding the dangers posed by unbending unionism to the ultimate health of Britain.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 2:24pm on 27 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    27

    Again this relates to Ireland, since by this arguement, if the majority of the UK (e.g. England) did not approve of Ireland having self governance or independence, it should not have been granted. The historic consequences of this imperial arrogance have not been small but they have been pretty horrific.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 2:28pm on 27 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    There is also an amusing inconsistency here.

    Previous postings have asserted that the feelings of the minority must prevail over the majority when it comes to constitutional change in Wales. Indeed, it has been stated that if a single person objects to proper self-governance, that single person's 'rights' must prevail.

    Now we are told it is up to the UK as a whole to decide.

    Mind you, why stiop at the UK, what about the EU or the UN...and don't forget the Martians might have strong feelings on the subject.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 2:31pm on 27 Aug 2009, Old_Miwl wrote:

    Message 27
    I was not at all rude in any of my messages, so I can’t understand why you feel the need to be so unpleasant in your response. I shall continue to be civil nonetheless.

    The states of the USA may not be “devolved” but the principle of there being different rate of tax, levels of services and laws each side of a border is mainly what I was referring to. It seems to work in many other countries, so I can’t see what the problem would be here. Just because a country is younger than the UK doesn’t mean that we can’t learn from it.

    There are many forms of democracy, but all come down the central tenet that the government should reflect the will of the people. One way to do this is to pass all our powers to make decisions to a government, or governments at various level, another is to have widespread use of referenda. Both are perfectly valid, and are employed in many countries (including the UK) without them descending into mob rule. What is important is that both sides make their case and then respect the decision of the people.

    Having different levels of government responsible for different things is not the same as people taking the law into their own hands. It is a perfectly valid, democratic and stable form of government.

    By the way, many of the western states were created by the US Congress, and so were not states which voluntarily entered into a federation. They were, from the start, a construct of the federal government, with sovereignty passed to them by Act of Congress. But you’re not interested in the past, are you…

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 3:33pm on 27 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    34

    Hen Miwl,

    The rudeness you have encountered is sadly par for the course for those who believe in reason and dialogue.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 4:04pm on 27 Aug 2009, West-Wales wrote:

    Returnee 31
    This mentality (and what happened as a consequence of it) is crucial to understanding the dangers posed by unbending unionism to the ultimate health of Britain.
    and at 32
    The historic consequences of this imperial arrogance have not been small but they have been pretty horrific

    Are you threatening someone?
    Lets remember the debate here in Wales is between Welshmen, the rest of the UK couldn't care less.

    In 33 you say;
    Previous postings have asserted that the feelings of the minority must prevail over the majority when it comes to constitutional change in Wales. Indeed, it has been stated that if a single person objects to proper self-governance, that single person's 'rights' must prevail.
    Those opposed to the Assembly having further powers are asking for a referendum, your statement is a gross misrepresentation of what has been posted here.

    But

    Your comment uses the argument of the language activists, attempting to justify draconian language and cultural legislation.
    The wishes of the minority must prevail over the needs of the majority.

    At 26 responding to amalfiboy's 25 saying we get access to so much of our secondary and specialist healthcare in England.
    you said
    That makes sense. It also demonstrates the fluidity of boundaries - in healthcare as in broadcasting.
    I thought you were starting to see a glimmer of light!!






    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 4:09pm on 27 Aug 2009, John Henry wrote:

    #33

    There is no inconsistency, it was me that proposed that even if one objected to separation from the union the one must prevail.

    You might remember the Nationalists disavowed the concept of such a notion.


    The sad nature of Welsh politics is a very small minority are not satisfied with any solution other than Independence, it is my view that this is a social cancer and has a cure in waiting, it requires the next industrial revolution. The cure will not be created by politicians, they only consume the wealth of innovation, it will be created by the next generation of innovators and entrepreneurs. Until its arrival the Nationalist cancer needs to be ..............

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 4:43pm on 27 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    m,essage 34....


    First...where did I say you were rude in your message.

    I made one comment in regards what I saw as a silly remark in using the comment you made re the 'people want it that way' which is patently incorrect becaue the people here in Wales have not been tested in a correct and sufficient manner, regarding what amounts to a Constitutional al;teration to the status of their region.

    I nor m,any others accept the phony referendum result based ona majority of 25% orf the electorate.

    I will be quite happy to accept the results of a referendum in which the people of Wales are asked, 'do you wish to be devolved?'
    even if the majority is just one vote, but with the proviso that ALL who are eligible to vote must do so.

    Not what has so far been proposed, 'do you wish the Assembly to have more law making powers?..... and allowing the turn out to again be only around 50% of those enfranchised.

    What you consider to be 'rude' escapes me, If you cannot stand straight rhetoric, then I am afraid this blog will not give you satisfaction, because on here I shoot from the hip.

    You get the same as you would get if in open forum in a hall, or an assembly room.

    That said, please do tell me what was rude about message 27.


    The matter of secession to clarify one point, has yet to be resolved in America, the Chase decision of 1870 was applicable to that time, and was complicated by matters beyond the subject of secession, there are many states, Georgia for example, that have passed, as recently as this year, 2009, legislation that effectively tells Washington it will retain the right of secession.



    Message 30......Germany? irrelevant to the discussion.

    Message 31 ...Ireland ?.... what has that to do with the matter of cross dyke possible problems, in a future scenario, should Wales gain increased laws and even independence?


    message 32.... ?

    Message 33...?????

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 4:57pm on 27 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:


    Message 34...


    Please direct me to where I said you were rude in my message.

    The only slight I may have given, was to say your remark, in the last paragraph, was silly.



    "....Mapexx asked what the "need" for devolution was as he saw nearly all governance across the UK as the same. I replied, because people want it that way, and that is my understanding of how a democracy is supposed to work.
    Does that clear it up?...."

    I think in the light of the remark above, I am allowed to make such an observation. However if it offends you, then you are obviously unable to accept straight comment, and maybe another, and less robust, blog would be more to your liking.


    Message 35...


    Thank you for the kind words, I am sure you meant every one of the
    last 7 in the sentence.

    ".....The rudeness you have encountered is sadly par for the course for those who believe in reason and dialogue....."

    (what was that about typos or typo's, grammatical in this case, I suggest)

    Maybe you can answer for Mewi, seeing as you are so smart,...

    ..... what rudeness?

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 5:33pm on 27 Aug 2009, West-Wales wrote:

    Returnee my 33 your statement is a gross misrepresentation of what has been posted here.
    Apologies I had missed Stonemasons post.

    Stoney your 37;
    even if one objected to separation from the union the one must prevail.
    I do not understand your position on this, and strongly disagree.

    I accept constitutional change should only be made with a clear majority of the whole electorate.

    Perhaps you can explain why majority opinion should not carry.



    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 5:46pm on 27 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    36

    There never have been any threats from me, nor will there ever be.

    I am simply pointing out it is far better to seek peaceful resolutions to conflicts than to allow volience to prevail. Ireland ought to have reached a peaceful settlement in 1888-90, but this was spurned, and the rest is not very nice.

    I am a moderate fereral-internationalist, who is seeking ways to find a new settlement for Wales.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 5:48pm on 27 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    37

    "Until its arrival the Nationalist cancer needs to be .............."

    Go on, don't feel afraid to say exactly what you'd do to people who do not see things your way.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 5:54pm on 27 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    38

    Re 30-33

    !

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 6:24pm on 27 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    39

    Look at all the postings.

    Several accuse me of lying about my doc due to the inability to know what a DPhil is.

    Other accuse people of stupidity irrespective of what the facts are.

    Others make all manner of threats at people who don't toe the line.

    Sadly, rudeness here appears to be the norm, rather than the exception.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 6:27pm on 27 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    40

    Cheers, mate!

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 6:53pm on 27 Aug 2009, Old_Miwl wrote:

    38 & 39
    I didn't claim that you said I was rude. I said that as I was perfectly polite, I didn't understand why you felt the need to be rude. I hope that clears this up.
    On the other matter, “the people want it that way”. It's not patently untrue. On every measure that has been taken since 1997, there is growing support for devolution. You may not like the results, but that does not make them invalid.
    It's perfectly possible to be robust and engage in strong debate without resorting to belittling comments like “grow up” or calling alternative opinions “silly”. This is what I try to do. I don't agree with your viewpoint but you obviously hold it passionately and I respect that, as I respect others who don't approve of devolution. As long as well all respect the democratic process, that is.
    One of the reasons that I don't post here very often is that I don't like debates to get personal or unpleasant. For that reason, I won't post any more on this thread, but will wait until Betsan posts another topic that I can respond to. Your comments don't offend or upset me – I have much thicker skin than that – I simply don't see the need for them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 7:23pm on 27 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    message 44...


    As you decided to 'support' a message from another, who claimed for rudeness being contained in his message, supposedly remarked on by me, I felt it beholden on myself, to ask you to carry on with your accepting Mewi's cloak, and explain where he was coming from.

    So in the interest of the clarification, which never came, I suppose I am to take it, you have nothing to say, despite your butting in, just as you did over the V and F matter with another.


    Yes, and YOU look at all the postings from yourself, that have contained typographical or grammatical errors, that YOU chose to ignore, but found yourself unable to ignore the same from others, and which YOU made big issue of.

    I suggest in future you concentrate on the subject matter of the original submission by the Blog header, or at least continue in a constructive manner, the variable debate that ensues from it, and leave off the sniping towards those who you cannot, seemingly, argue with, and so you place off thread remarks, usually of a very simplistic sound byte type.

    It is that which annoys the bulk of the bloggers on here. In particular myself, Stonemason, and Westy, as well as others I could name, whom I am sure feel the same as I do over your submissions.

    So far, a great amount of blog space has been utilised in responding to rather worthless messages from yourself, and others, who seem determined to follow an almost identical message construction regime. I think it about time much of this dross is terminated, and a return to sensible cut and thrust debate and discussion returned to.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 7:31pm on 27 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:






    message 46...


    "....I didn't claim that you said I was rude. I said that as I was perfectly polite, I didn't understand why you felt the need to be rude. I hope that clears this up....."


    No... I am afraid it does NOT clear it up.

    I now ask you to examine my message, to which this is about, and make it plain to me where I was rude to you.

    As stated, the only possible slight could be my saying, which despite your remarks in #46, are patently silly, and as explained previously, that was simply 'straight' talk, which, as I also said if you cannot take, then you should not be on this blog, which you cannot fail to have noticed is full to the gunwales with rather strident rhetoric.


    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 7:44pm on 27 Aug 2009, West-Wales wrote:

    Old Miwl at 46
    I strongly support your comment;
    It's perfectly possible to be robust and engage in strong debate without resorting to belittling comments like “grow up” or calling alternative opinions “silly”. This is what I try to do. I don't agree with your viewpoint but you obviously hold it passionately and I respect that, as I respect others who don't approve of devolution. As long as well all respect the democratic process, that is.


    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 8:00pm on 27 Aug 2009, John Henry wrote:

    #40 West-Wales

    .....even if one objected to separation from the union the one must prevail.

    This was a philosophical proposition where the one or few might have rights as relevant as the many. Should the one or few be forced to accept a new nationality.


    This is not a simple constitutional issue, it is not the introduction of reversible legislation, it is the removal of a persons identity, the persons nationality, the creation of a new country. It is similar to the India/Pakistan situation during 1947. My proposition is the "one" can be as important as a "majority remainder".


    #42

    You predictably wrote "Until its arrival the Nationalist cancer needs to be .............. ". And then you spat,.............. Go on, don't feel afraid to say exactly what you'd do to people who do not see things your way.

    Until its arrival the Nationalist cancer needs to be hugged, much like an errant child.

    I recommend Kant to you, particularly where he wrote "'all,' who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom."

    There is more in this world than the narrow parochial view of Plaid, there is the multi-faceted United Kingdom where the vast majority live in relative harmony. Sometimes in this country of ours the "one" is very important.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 8:12pm on 27 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    message 46....


    I have to say, reading the message from Westy message 49, I realise where you may be making complaint.


    Yes, I did say 'grow up' unfortunately for some reason I cannot fathom, I did not mean to put that line in.
    At the same time I was writing my message, I was also writing an e mail, (going back and forth between pages), to my daughter, in which she was moaninmg about some domestic matter, I saw fit to side with her husband, and I wrote 'Grow up' to her over it.

    I then swtiched back to my message on here, and until Westy pointed it out, I did not know the phrase had somehow come into my message to you.

    That was it, so I am sorry if it gave you the impression I was being rude.

    As you must see, from previous messages, I was only concerned about saying your remark was silly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 8:28pm on 27 Aug 2009, Jack_Wilkinson wrote:

    Message 19 Old_Miwl wrote.
    every poll that has been taken over the last 10 years has shown increasing support for some form of devolved government for Wales. Election results also back this up.

    Sorry for my previous reply, but as Peter Hain has recently moaned, that in the 2008 council elections, Labour lost support in Wales at a far greater extent than in England and Scotland. Where the NO vote for devolution was high, Labours vote share has collapsed. If devolution is so popular the reverse would be true, Labour's vote share would be soaring. Do not mention the wars, the Conservatives are considered to be equally responsible, ( forgetting equipment for now ) so it's not that. The European elections, was even more horrendous for Rhodri's version of Labour, it's showing that voters, are revolted by them? Devolution, compulsory Welsh lessons, a vast job creation scheme for the Rhodri types, and of course empire building, it's coming back to haunt them.


    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 9:19pm on 27 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    Message 52...


    Jack, I have just researched the web site of ICM, the company engaged by the Assembly, to conduct a telephone poll on the matter of which we discuss.


    The main question was.. "If you are asked to vote for further law making powers for the Assembly, which way would you vote?"



    Hardly an unbiased question eh? but then there was apparently no demographic location for this vote, although it was stated it was region wide, which makes me wonder just how many calls were made into south east or north east Wales?

    The number polled was 1000, and as it was by telephone, and no doubt sounded very official, it invoked the response the Assembly was, without doubt, seeking.

    This firm has done innumerable polls of a similar nature, and all, with what appears to me to be, the sought for result.

    Something stinks in the state of Denmark, for which, read.. WALES!!!.


    Are the Welsh to be conned into accepting this slanted nonsense for the future of our homeland?

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 9:40pm on 27 Aug 2009, Lyn David Thomas wrote:

    Where is the evidence that Labour's vote has suffered in Wales because of their support for Devolution? There is none, there is an assertion from some but no evidence at all.

    Oh and Mapexx there are 50 states in the USA - DC is not a state, but a federally administered territory, with a devolved city government. Its not a state.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 9:43pm on 27 Aug 2009, West-Wales wrote:

    52 Jack
    You are correct - the ballot box is where these decisions are made.

    Any one can fix an opinion poll to get the result they want.
    Why do you think a diplomat was chosen to head up the All Wales Convention, diplomacy is the employment of tact to gain strategic advantage - seems like that propoganda ploy has gone belly up!!!
    Note the wording of the request for comment on the Language LCO, any fair minded person would answer yes to the three questions.

    But we are involved in a process - the activists driving the process need to convince the electorate (among other things) that their project will benefit the Welsh people, that they have majority support, are speaking for the majority.

    The Assembly is spending many millions on this project.
    At every opportunity the Nationalists claim - we have majority support.
    Misinformation - smoke and mirrors - grand deception - pure propoganda.

    Despite all this, when tested at the ballot box, Labour are in free fall and Plaid can only manage 18.5% of the vote, with UKIP snapping at there heels - hardly a ringing endorsement of the Nationalist policies.

    The people of Wales are not fools - they are able to make rational judgements - they only have to watch what goes on in the Senedd, they can see the waste of money and resources, and compare their public service delivery with that in the rest of the UK.

    Devolution is not working, and most of the people of Wales understand that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 9:57pm on 27 Aug 2009, Jack_Wilkinson wrote:

    Mapexx, the Daily mirror, is the newspaper of Labour, they constantly slag off any other political party, especially the Conservatives. But something is so bizarre in Welsh Labour, the political editor of the Welsh Mirror, Paul Starling, Rhondda boy. In the penultimate issue of the WM, Starling wrote, something stinks in the heart of Welsh Labour. He then advised his readers to vote Conservative, in Monmouthshire, Newport east and west, all of Cardiff, Vale of Glamorgan and Bridgend. Strange that the Welsh Mirror, with a circulation of circa 150,000, closed because of economics? The Scottish Mirror, circulation 60,000, N Ireland Mirror circulation around 50,000, are still going? Paul Starling is happily living in Usk, his MP, is of course the great David Davies, Monmouthshire's favourite son.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 9:59pm on 27 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    "The matter of secession to clarify one point, has yet to be resolved in America, the Chase decision of 1870 was applicable to that time, and was complicated by matters beyond the subject of secession, there are many states, Georgia for example, that have passed, as recently as this year, 2009, legislation that effectively tells Washington it will retain the right of secession."

    Absolute total nonsense. Map - they had a pretty brutal war about it. Some states tried to leave? I know you have no interest in history but there's no need to make you look stupid.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 10:39pm on 27 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    57...

    I have friends in Georgia, who I telephoned earlier. In passing I asked about the secession matter, and was directed to a web site which informed me that the Georgia senate had passed an amendment that effectively gives Washington notice of intent.

    It is too late now to rustle it up again, but I will get it back in the morrow and lodge the web site for you to look at yourself.

    Yes they had a war about splitting the union, a totally different matter, in conclusion, if you do not wish me to be strident with you, then refrain from using virtually all your messages as vehicles for stating every things I write is 'absolute rubbish' or 'absolute total nonsense'.

    I have been more than polite to you over many messages, and it is not beyond your capability to act the same. Keep in mind each time I have been sharp with you, was because you used such remarks in a message responding to a previous one from myself.

    Why do you think I chose to have your messages removed? And because they were removed, it should be obvious to you the moderators agreed with my complaint.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 11:03pm on 27 Aug 2009, Jack_Wilkinson wrote:

    54. At 9:40pm on 27 Aug 2009, Lyn_Thomas wrote:
    Where is the evidence that Labour's vote has suffered in Wales because of their support for Devolution? There is none, there is an assertion from some but no evidence at all.

    Sorry Lyn, you seem to waft about in Dreamland, if you can summon up a little bit of energy, go check recent election results?


    Welsh Labour, played the dirtiest trick in the book, for decades they appeared to be much like Labour in the rest of the UK. Shamelessly courting the vote of the English speaking working classes, big mistake. Did the oh so clever Rhodri types, think that the 'thicko' working class types, would quietly acquiesce to Cymraeg supremacy?

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 04:39am on 28 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 61. At 09:05am on 28 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    47

    Delicious irony - these epic rambling rants complaining about web space being taken up.

    Personally, I think concision shows mental precision.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 09:08am on 28 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    56

    We are in new territory here.

    What will Zanu Labour look like in Wales in (and the UK) 2010 let alone in 2011?

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 09:09am on 28 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    53

    Shakespeare aside, Denmark has some of the highest human wellbeing scores in the world.

    It may have something to do with its compact size and its relationship with the rest of Scandinavia.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 09:10am on 28 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    50

    I was getting worried for a moment.

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 09:14am on 28 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    47

    My standing up to what ammounts to bullying behaviour only appears to raise objections from one, perhaps two in fact.

    I have already explained why I use humour.

    I, like the vast majority of people in Wales, look forward to seeing how our devolved future will develop. We live for the future, an outwards looking future.


    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 09:29am on 28 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:


    message 60....



    Here are the legal definitions of the two aspects of government as you requested...


    1:-

    A CONFEDERATION, in modern political terms, is a permanent union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states. Usually created by treaty, but often later adopting a common constitution, confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues such as defense, foreign affairs, or a common currency, with the central government being required to provide support for all members.

    The USA of a is NOT a CONFEDERATION. Go check, ask the American embassy.


    2:-

    A FEDERATION (Latin: foedus, foederis, 'covenant'), also known as a federal state, is a type of sovereign state characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (federal) government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states is typically constitutionally entrenched and may NOT BE ALTERED BY A UNILATERAL DECISION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.

    The form of government or constitutional structure found in a federation is known as federalism (see also federalism as a political philosophy).


    The US of A IS a FEDERATION.

    Note the capitalised last line in the former paragraph, which effectively gives credence to the notion that secession IS available to the individual states.

    It is the Federal government that CANNOT cause a breakdown of the federation therefore. Implied in the capitalised line is that the constituent States CAN so do, or CAN Secede if it is found necessary to do so.

    IN passing, I have had your messages removed, not because I cannot take criticism, but because what you wrote in them was NOT criticism, but remarks of a personal nature, unacceptable under the rules of the house. The moderators agreed with me, by removing them.

    Now, maybe in future you will refrain from those nasty little remarks that have, so far, invariably accompanied your messages.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 09:55am on 28 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    I didn't request anything from you Mappex. THe USA is a Federation - absolutely correct from which - (see Texas v White, US Supreme Court 1869.) states cannot unilateraly secede.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 10:14am on 28 Aug 2009, John Henry wrote:

    #67, try Wiki before engaging keyboard .....

    Secession in the United States

    Discussions and threats of secession have often surfaced in American politics, but only in the case of the Confederate States of America was secession actually declared. A 2008 Zogby International poll revealed that 22% of Americans believe that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic." The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), that while the union was "perpetual" and that secession ordinances were "absolutely null," membership nevertheless could be revoked "through revolution, or through consent of the States."


    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 10:19am on 28 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    message 67...



    In a previous message did you not ask me for the difference between a fed and a con?


    As stated, the Texas v White case was less to do with politics, and more to do with Texas claiming the return of extremely valuable fiscal bonds,the judge in the case ruled that Texas could not secede because the previous administration had joined the Confederacy, which placed it beyond the original federation accedence.

    To date there has NOT been a further test of the matter before the supreme court, although many have called for such procedures to take place, most have fallen due to inapplicable preparation, that precluded, or disqualified, such manoeuvres on the grounds of some legal clause, or other constitutonal matter.

    Georgia, as stated, has overcome that, and has now placed itself in a position of fully and legally able to secede as and when required. Many other states are following the legal example of Georgia, preparing similar legal structures, based on what Georgia has established.
    As I pointed out, it is ONLY the Federal government that CANNOT dissolve the union. But that does not prevent individual States from leaving the federation.
    Maybe had it had been a Con-federal government, then your assessment would be correct.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 11:05am on 28 Aug 2009, John Henry wrote:


    When #63 wrote.....

    Denmark has some of the highest human well-being scores in the world.


    It must be the absence of Plaid, the party of Oliver, Dickens not Cromwell, policies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 12:58pm on 28 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    "....through revolution, or through consent of the States."

    Precisely Stony - not through unilateral action.

    "Maybe had it had been a Con-federal government, then your assessment would be correct."

    No - in a Condederal system the states would have the right to unilaterally leave. THat's the disinction.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 1:11pm on 28 Aug 2009, Returnee wrote:

    70

    Nope, I think it is the absence of UKIP and the BNP and the acceptance that the EU was a force for the good and understanding that devolution and indeed self-governance makes sense, as seen in their policy towards Iceland, the Faroes and Greenland.

    In the 1980s, they had one mellow outfit, the Radical Party. Despite their name, they were on the maverick right, suggesting that if elected, they would abolish their armed forces and replace them with an answering machine, which when contacted, would announce 'we surrender!' in Russian.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 2:22pm on 28 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    In a previous message did you not ask me for the difference between a fed and a con? - No I understand thanks.

    "To date there has NOT been a further test of the matter before the supreme court, although many have called for such procedures to take place, most have fallen due to inapplicable preparation, that precluded, or disqualified, such manoeuvres on the grounds of some legal clause, or other constitutonal matter." Correct so Texas v White is the relevant judicial precedent.

    "Georgia, as stated, has overcome that, and has now placed itself in a position of fully and legally able to secede as and when required." - No - the Federal Government is the relevant legal authority - that's the point of "Federation" cf. "Conferderation" - the right to sucession is a Federal matter.

    "As I pointed out, it is ONLY the Federal government that CANNOT dissolve the union. But that does not prevent individual States from leaving the federation." - As discussed precedence says No.

    I personally think that States should have the right to secede by the way - Good luck to Georgia.


    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 2:48pm on 28 Aug 2009, John Henry wrote:


    71

    ..... through revolution comes across as unilateral from where I am sitting.

    72

    ..... I checked again, a collective sigh from Denmark then confirmation that Plaid does not have a presence in their fair lands.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 2:54pm on 28 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    "The USA of a is NOT a CONFEDERATION. Go check, ask the American embassy." - I know - why are you shouting ? - Where did I say the US was a confederation? In a confederation the component partners have the right to secede. Do you remember that some Arab countries in the 70s formed the "Federation of Arab Republics" in 1972 - despite the title this was a confederation. In a similar nomenclature issue the "Confederation of Canada" is really a federation......

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 3:16pm on 28 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    "... through revolution comes across as unilateral from where I am sitting." Yeah I was going to comment on that but just presumed that "Revolution" is illegal in America. What do you reckon?

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 8:52pm on 28 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    message 75....


    The extracts I presented in message 66 explain the FACT that the USA IS a Federation. Not Confederation, the two fought and the Feds won.

    Go check it out, and do not argue with an expert who KNOWS how to exactly extract information from available sources.

    To clarify,... under a Confederation participant States CANNOT secede, under a Federation they can, if only with extreme difficulty, However as I have already shown to be the case, the Federal government CANNOT unilaterally disband the union.


    Don't argue with me, when you are not prepared for the facts of the matter.

    Be a good boy scout, remember the motto...Be Prepared. Dob! Dob! Dob!

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 9:52pm on 28 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    Map - the USA is a Federation. In a Confederation states can secede - that was the point of the American Civil War.

    That's the whole difference between the definition of the words. Why are you being so daft?

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 9:55pm on 28 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    "The extracts I presented in message 66 explain the FACT that the USA IS a Federation"

    Groundhog day - correct - it is - I know - what are you whining about?

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 10:12pm on 28 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    For the last time....



    A CONFEDERATION, in modern political terms, is a PERMANENT union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states. Usually created by treaty, but often later adopting a common constitution, confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues such as defense, foreign affairs, or a common currency, with the central government being required to provide support for all members.


    Take a look at the capitalised word on the first line.



    Now who is being daft, it's the 'f' and 'v' all over again.

    Talk about deliberate stubbornness. Remove the blinkers, come into the light!

    Or is this some sort of Windup, argument for the sake of it?

    If not, then you must be dyslexic, putting everything into reverse mode.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 10:31pm on 28 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    Map -I'll revert to Wiki for the last time:

    "By definition, the difference between a confederation and a federation is that the membership of the member states in a confederation is voluntary, while the membership in a federation is not"

    Read that a few times and try and understand. When you join a federation you accept the rules of the joint governing body. In a confederation you don't - you can leave when you see fit (I referred to the Arab example) -Now what is difficult about that to understand?
    I have absolutely no prejudice on this matter at all - just can't understand why you are being so daft.

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 10:33pm on 28 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    And Map - remember your civility promise....

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 9:07pm on 29 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    81 and 82, ...

    I have to repeat, I am not being uncibvil in repeating, You MUST be dyslexic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 9:21pm on 29 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    message 82...


    I am not being uncivil or impolite, just stating a apparent fact.. I also took down the definitions given before from Wiki. I refer you back to the wording of the definition of a Confederation in message 80

    from Wiki:


    A CONFEDERATION, in modern political terms, is a PERMANENT union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states.

    note the word Permanent.
    Once entered into a Confederation, the individual state subsumes it's sovereignty into the Confederation.

    In a Federation it doesn't, and the Union is NOT permanent, for the individual state, however the Federation cannot UNILATERALLY sunder the Union.
    Why else do you think quite a few states have attempted secession, with Georgia so far the only one to, my knowledge, being successful in passing the necessary amendments to facilitate such secession?

    I am afraid you have read your Wiki information wrongly. End of.

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 01:22am on 30 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    Map - don't get so annoyed. I know the difference. In a confederation component parts can secede as has happened in the Arab example quoted. In a federation unilateral secession not legal as shown by the fact that it has never happened. Now don't get annoyed, read carefully, review your observations and retract.
    Your qoute:
    "Why else do you think quite a few states have attempted secession, with Georgia so far the only one to, my knowledge, being successful in passing the necessary amendments to facilitate such secession?"
    Proves my point - they have all failed - as would Georgia if they tried - but it's more a point about the rights of the unborn child.

    Why don't you try and learn stuff rather than just state opinion. Learning is good.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 09:10am on 30 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    85...

    The final comment on message 84 applies, beyond that I am afraid you are just being argumetatively stubborn as in the f and v dispute.

    The whole point IS, Confederated states CANNOT secede,.. the word 'PERMANENT' seems to be a blind spot for you. Go look it up.

    You obviously have no idea of Descriptive legal terms, or American constitutional law.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 11:52am on 30 Aug 2009, FiDafydd wrote:

    Re 83

    You're now calling people dyslexic??!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 11:52am on 30 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    Right Map - here's some examples of sucession from confederated states.

    The Union of Afican States - Ghana, Guinea and Mali. Formed in 1959 - fel apart in 1962.
    Seebia and Montenegro - this confederation was formed in 2003 - Montenego seceeded in 2006.
    I could go on for a while but not much point. Can you give me a list of states to sucessfully legally secede from a Federation?
    And Map - I'm trying to be civil - quit your abusive language will you - it's not fitting for civilised discourse.


    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 2:36pm on 30 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    # 88



    Having just spent some time researching those two 'confeds' I find they were nothing of the sort, just loose unions.

    Another person mentioned Switzerland as an example of a Confed, wrooong again, whoever it was who mentioned the place. Switzerland ceased to be a Confed/Fed? on 18th Aprill 1999, when the Swiss population voted in favour of a complete revision of the Federal Constitution, declared on 12th Sept 1848.



    I have also, just spent ten minitutes on my phone speaking to a lawyer acquaintance in in Montana, USA, who informs me that 'legally' any state can secede, as they it is beholden to the Union/Federal Govt. to accept the will of the 'people', and if the 'people' of a state are hell bent on secession, the Federal govenment cannot oppose, nor, as I said previously, can the Federal Governmant sunder the Union, or even expel a State from the Union.

    That there would be extreme difficulty in attempting to secede, (as I also stated), is without doubt, but there is nothing in the Constitutionthat that can be invoked to gain precedence over 'The People'.

    Those are the words of my contact in Montana. He just happens to be a Corporate lawyer with forty odd years experience in Corporate and Constitutional Law behind him.

    Re your request for a list, I could not be bothered trawling through reams of paper or multitudinous web sites, for info that I have already found to be extremely hard to define, never mind discover.

    I have already dispensed with the African Union, and the other one, as they were NOT legally defined as Confed's.

    But for clarity...Serbia and Montenegro were united only in certain political areas (e.g. defense). The republics had functioned separately throughout the period of the Federal Republic, and had continued to have individual economic policies as well as using separate currencies (the Euro was the only legal tender in Montenegro).
    In 2002, Serbia and Montenegro came to a new agreement regarding continued co-operation, which, among other changes, promised the end of the name Yugoslavia, since they were part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. On 4 February 2003, the federal parliament of Yugoslavia created a LOOSE confederation - State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. A new Constitutional Charter was agreed to provide a framework for the governance of the country.

    On Sunday, 21 May 2006, Montenegrins voted on an independence referendum, with 55.5% supporting independence. Fifty-five percent or more of affirmative votes were needed to dissolve the state union of Serbia and Montenegro. The turnout was 86.3% and 99.73% of the more than 477,000 votes cast were deemed valid.

    The subsequent Montenegrin proclamation of independence on 3 June 2006 and the Serbian proclamation of independence on 5 June ended the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro and thus the last remaining vestiges of the former Yugoslavia.



    The Union of African States, was a short lasting unionPolitical union


    But in the main this is a discussion over the difference in the meanings of Confed and Fed. In particular the definitions as applied to the USA.

    Please explain your final line. Have you some sort of trouble defining the word 'abusive?'

    I was as civil as necessary before, what sort of sensitivity have you that takes offence at the most innocent of comment.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 5:04pm on 30 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    "Re your request for a list, I could not be bothered trawling through reams of paper or multitudinous web sites, for info that I have already found to be extremely hard to define, never mind discover"

    Yep = because you can't find a single case of a federal component seceding legally. Map - this is no big deal to me just you are totally wrong. So what? Admit it and move on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 10:16pm on 30 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    message 90,


    You were wrong in the f and v discussion, yiou were wrong in placing Hafodyrynys in Blaenau Gwent, you were wrong in the matter of Serbia/Montenegro, and the African Union of States and you tell me I am wrong..
    You ARE wrong in the definition of Federal and Confederal, and just because, so far, no state of The Union has seceded, as I have already told you, they do have the option, as yet untested to the full, but the way things are looking across the pond, not too impossible a scenario in the future. Therefore you may yet be proven wrong again.

    I have to say, you seem awfully stubborn in you understanding of both law and current affairs.



    Yopu are wromg in tne

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 11:09pm on 30 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    Strangely enough I was right in all the matters you refer to. On this issue tell me a state of a federal union that has left.

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 11:24pm on 30 Aug 2009, FiDafydd wrote:

    Re 91

    "Yopu are wromg in tne" ???

    However, an answer to 92 would be good.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 08:10am on 31 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    "I have already dispensed with the African Union" - Sorry Map = I must have missed that. Where?

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 8:23pm on 31 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    I'm waiting Mapexx.

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 10:30pm on 31 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    message 92...



    NO, you were wrong, in wevery one of the subjects.


    Message 93,... a scattering of letters that failed to erase. Clever dick!.



    The Union of African States, was a short lasting Political union, neither a confed or a fed. Listed on the UN as ....


    ....A political structure.


    #95...

    see above.


    And don't be such a smart arse!

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 10:40pm on 31 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    message 92.... #


    Again for clarification


    Hafodyrynys is in CAEPHILLY.

    The F in Cymraeg equates to the V in English, which makes it 'hard'.

    The FF in Cymraeg equates to f in English which makes it 'soft'.

    Srange that there are no of those wonderful Cymraeg speakers,(those that are FLUENT, in case FI Fi decides to throw his oar in, which does not count 'cos he is only barely able to make noises in that language), who are prepared to put the matter to bed.

    What are you lot scared of boyos? in case you find yourselves agreeing with someone who actually knows just that little bit more about your sacred lingo than Dewi does, and you don't want to embarrass him maybe?

    Even with a full and definitive explaination from your fave source of knowledge, Wiki, you still attempt to deny the facts of the matter in ref to Confed and Fed. Shame on you, for being so damned obtuse.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 10:41pm on 31 Aug 2009, mapexx wrote:

    message 95...again...

    forgot to add,...


    ... keep waiting, the number 9 bus will be along in a while.

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 11:06pm on 31 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    I repeat (I really don't want to make you look foolish) - tell me a state of a federal union that has left.

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 11:08pm on 31 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    And remember trying to be civil Map.

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 11:19pm on 31 Aug 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    And again Map - keep to your civility rule.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 11:57pm on 31 Aug 2009, momouthisenglish wrote:

    Mappex is quite right..it was originally spelt Blaenaffon...like Daffydd in Little Briton. It comes from a corruption of the English word Blind and afternoon,,,,originally Blind afternoon.This refers to the miners who were temporarily blinded by the sun on finishing their morning shift

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 04:12am on 01 Sep 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    The only reason for the existance of the two words Confederation and Federation is the distinction that components can leave confederations voluntarily as in Serbia and Montenegro. That is a fact I'm afraid Mapexx.

    i) As I suspected the bit of Hafod I was referring to is in Sofrydd.
    ii)I still think the English v sounds softer than the English f.

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 09:50am on 01 Sep 2009, mapexx wrote:

    message 103...

    Serbia-Montenegro is/was listed by the United nations as a political union.

    Under the terms of confederation the participants agree to permanent status, which makes the union of states PERMANENT, therefore they cannot secede.

    I have shown you this about three or more times now.

    A federalisation of states gives legal credence to the notion the individual participants CAN secede However as I have already stated, ion the case of the USA it may mean extreme legal and constitutional upset.

    What is it that you cannot understand about that?

    I have just telephoned Blaenau Gwent council, who have confirmed NO part of Hafodyrynys lies within the borders of that Borough.

    Later I will get on to the Cymraeg fluent Aberystwyth University or library for confirmation re the had and soft 'f' & 'v' matter.

    Two single units hardly comprise a Confederation. Even in the OED, the term barely scrapes through as an alliance, that after several other meanings have been defined. None of which would apply to just 'two' modern states in union.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 10:10am on 01 Sep 2009, Returnee wrote:

    103

    Alun Vichael does sound softer than Alum Fichael.

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 10:14am on 01 Sep 2009, Returnee wrote:

    104

    The wonders of Wales: Welsh speaking universities and libraries!

    "In These Stones Hozirons Sing" who needs people?

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 10:16am on 01 Sep 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    "I have shown you this about three or more times now." - and you have been wrong every time. Sebia-Montenegro was a confederation from which Montenegro suceeded. I can't find a single example of a successful legal withdrawal from a Federation (not just the US)
    "A federalisation of states gives legal credence to the notion the individual participants CAN secede" - strange because the truth is precisely the opposite - again I repeat that's the precise difference between the two words.
    On Hafod - I still reckon the bit around the Hafodyrynys inn and the chip shop is counted as Sofrydd - but if BG council are sure I'll give you that one.
    On "F" and "V" all we are discussing is what "soft" and "hard" mean in this context. English "v" and Welsh "f" sound softer to me then "F" and "FF".

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 10:34am on 01 Sep 2009, West-Wales wrote:

    Hozirons - similar to the Hebrew word for "piggy" (haziron, חזירון), not to mention the Turkish word for June (Haziran).

    ??? or did you mean Horizons???

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 11:15am on 01 Sep 2009, Returnee wrote:

    108

    Let's go for horizons!

    Mind you, 'in these stones piggies sing' has something going for it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 10:15pm on 01 Sep 2009, mapexx wrote:

    # 107...


    I shall return on the f & v matter tomorrow, I am expecting a message from TWO Cymraeg authoritarian sources on that one.

    Today I was given the exact boundary between Caerphilly, and BG, at Sofrydd, it is excatly 150 metres, (nearly 500 feet) towards BG from the Hafodryyns Hotel.

    That makes for one correct for me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 10:28pm on 01 Sep 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    " Today I was given the exact boundary between Caerphilly, and BG, at Sofrydd, it is excatly 150 metres, (nearly 500 feet) towards BG from the Hafodryyns Hotel."

    Which direction exactly Map?

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 11:33pm on 01 Sep 2009, FiDafydd wrote:

    Re 110

    "Authoritarian"!! They would be I suppose - the only kind of opinion you have an interest in.

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 12:46pm on 02 Sep 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    "Which direction exactly Map?" - I was kidding Mapexx - In the great debate over Hafodyrynys I admit defeat - you are right - well done!!..Totally and utterly wrong on Federations etc but 1 out of 2 ain't bad.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 3:09pm on 02 Sep 2009, mapexx wrote:

    message 112...


    The Library of Wales and a Cymraeg outfit in Cardiff.

    They are considered to be the arbiters of all things to do with the Cymraeg, so they are AUTHORITARIAN.

    Need any more definitions?



    Message 113....


    Grazi for the Havod settlement.


    I am awaiting a response from Eileen Servidio,a very 'big' American legal expert and head of the French American law academy, (look her up on the web) for a conclusive and definitive answer, re the Con and Fed matter.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 3:39pm on 02 Sep 2009, Returnee wrote:

    114

    Therefore anybody who regards themselves as being an arbiter over any matter regarding the English language is likewise seen as being authoritarian.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 3:43pm on 02 Sep 2009, Fitzmark2 wrote:

    M89
    Mappex writes:
    "On Sunday, 21 May 2006, Montenegrins voted on an independence referendum, with 55.5% supporting independence. Fifty-five percent or more of affirmative votes were needed to dissolve the state union of Serbia and Montenegro. The turnout was 86.3% and 99.73% of the more than 477,000 votes cast were deemed valid."

    And Fitzmark2 comments:

    And the Montenegro referendum also puts into perspective the 97 referendum in Wales which pushed through a major but shaming change to a constitution on a so called winning margin of less than 1%. Yet you would think by the triumphalism shown by nationalists and their supporters that their democratic values are on a par with the Montenegrians or even with the democratic Scots?

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 5:00pm on 02 Sep 2009, FiDafydd wrote:

    Re 114

    Amazing, once again!

    Also, I think you'll find it's the National Library of Wales - something to do with a Royal Charter and Westminster, I believe! But let's not allow the truth to impinge on prejudice.

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 6:23pm on 02 Sep 2009, Returnee wrote:

    116

    Here is Wiki's take on this:

    "However, all recent opinion polls indicate an increasing level of support for further devolution, with support for primary law-making powers now commanding a majority, and diminishing support for abolition of the Assembly."

    What is good enough for the real world is good enough for me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 9:23pm on 02 Sep 2009, mapexx wrote:

    message 118...


    You are possibly correct, however, when properly adjusted figures are looked into, and the obvious bias in telephone polls taken on behalf of the Assembly/WAG,disregarded, the numbers don't really stack up to an overwhelming majority.

    Still the low end of what might be achieved if everyone got nice bribes...say for example... no council tax for a year or the removal of road tax and a few other tax grabs out of the wallet.


    What AM I doing?....... giving the Bay of Pigs ideas that may work in it's favour.

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 04:50am on 03 Sep 2009, Dewi_H wrote:

    "They are considered to be the arbiters of all things to do with the Cymraeg, so they are AUTHORITARIAN"

    Authoritative Map.

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 09:09am on 03 Sep 2009, FiDafydd wrote:

    Re 120

    He won't believe you!

    But I'm glad that, by his silence, he accepts that it is the National Library of Wales.

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 11:00am on 03 Sep 2009, Returnee wrote:

    119

    Bias works the other way as well, so the majorities may be even bigger.

    Meanwhile, here is the state of play as per 02-2009:

    Law-making Welsh parliament with tax powers in UK: 34%
    Law-making Welsh parliament with no tax powers in UK: 10%
    Independent Wales outside UK but in EU: 8%
    Independent Wales outside UK and EU: 5%
    Status quo: 21%
    Abolish assembly 19%
    Don't know: 4%

    Or,
    Pro Devolution: 78%
    Anti Devolution: 19%
    Don't know: 4%

    Or,
    More powers: 57%
    Status Quo: 21%
    Abolish: 19%
    Don't know: 4%

    From 51% pro to 78% pro suggets a shifting tide.
    Now, when we ponder that bias works both ways, maybe in fact, less than 10% of Wales are antis.

    Can we now get on living in the real world?

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 9:21pm on 03 Sep 2009, mapexx wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 124. At 9:42pm on 03 Sep 2009, FiDafydd wrote:

    Re 123

    Message 120...

    "Correct, remiss of me, but a snort of the good stuff tends to befuddle slightly."

    But of course you were quite happy to snipe:

    "The Library of Wales and a Cymraeg outfit in Cardiff.

    They are considered to be the arbiters of all things to do with the Cymraeg, so they are AUTHORITARIAN.

    Need any more definitions?"

    Why should we take anything you say seriously...

    RS Thomas would never have made that mistake, even after a drop of the hard stuff!


    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 9:53pm on 03 Sep 2009, Jack_Wilkinson wrote:

    Can we now get on living in the real world?

    Sounds good to me, but we all know that these pathetic, carefully worded polls are totally meaningless. Does anyone honestly believe that the shell shocked, Very Welsh Labour, are considering holding a poll anytime soon? They're doing their best to even exist! As the euro election results were coming in, Adam Price, who had predicted that Plaid would get the biggest vote share and win 2 seats, somehow managed to say through his grief.......'This is seismic for Labour' What an understatement? They came third behind UKIP in three Welsh constituencies, so forget that stupid, never gonna happen poll for more powers. Start thinking, what on earth can we do with that vacant assembly edifice?

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 10:12pm on 03 Sep 2009, momouthisenglish wrote:

    Old Ma Pexx talking her usual nonsense again

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 10:19pm on 03 Sep 2009, Returnee wrote:

    123

    "A snort of the good stuff" well, there you are!

    123 & 125

    The Poll was reported by the BBC, 26th Feb 2009

    As said before, they could also be underestimating the support for devolution and so on.

    I'll stick with the real world that 78% of Wales goes along with.

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 10:43am on 04 Sep 2009, mapex55 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 129. At 4:05pm on 04 Sep 2009, FiDafydd wrote:

    Re 128

    Is that you admitting you made a mistake...or just being authoritarian?

    You say:


    "The devolution idea was given a substantive turn down in 1979, then, after all the weeping and wailin, and demands for a re run by the Cymraeg nationalists, given a extremely slight majority in 1997.
    As far as I am concerned if it was OK for those crying mobsters to demand a further crack at the title, after '79, then so it is for those who are against it, to also get another crack at it, after '97."

    Despite being rude to all non-Welsh speaking nationalists in Wales, it's also pathetic. Those who lost the referendum vote in 79 didn't sulk or moan, they got on with the job, they argued, they campaigned. And what happened? Another referendum, and this time victory. A stunning turnaround.

    What are you doing about it mapexx? Moaning, weeping, shouting and being rude to everybody. I don't mind if you continue really; it's no way to secure another referendum, let alone win the vote.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 4:59pm on 04 Sep 2009, dai7900 wrote:

    I think I prefer Momouth's wit to Mapex' incoherent,repetitive, ungrammatical ramblings.The same 2 points endlessly repeated. Does anyone read his stuff?

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 5:11pm on 04 Sep 2009, Returnee wrote:

    128

    Mapex55?

    Previously he was 73.

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 5:20pm on 04 Sep 2009, mapex55 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 133. At 9:32pm on 04 Sep 2009, mapex55 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 134. At 9:54pm on 04 Sep 2009, mapex55 wrote:


    message 129....




    "A stunning turnaround".

    In '79, the vote, with a far higher turn out, was well enough to cancel out any hopes for a devolved assembly.


    The '97 referendum was 'won' by a margin so minute, in any other region of the world, an immediate unsatisfactory result would have been called, and a re run of the vote made to take place.
    Don't even dream of calling the result of '97 a "Stunning turnaround". It was no such thing, and we have been saddled with that menage in Cardiff Bay because the people were not interested enough, having seen off the nationalists in '79. they just didn't realise what would occur if they didn't bother. Now they certainly do know.

    A mistake they will not make the next time I can assure you.
    That is if those 'men & women of honour' in the Bay actually do as they said, and hold a further referendum, based on 'Should the Assembly continue?, not 'Should it get more unrequired or justified powers?'

    That will be the ticket that the militant amongst us will be placing before our constituencies, when the time comes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 10:26pm on 04 Sep 2009, Returnee wrote:

    133

    What an astonishingly intemperate posting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 10:28pm on 04 Sep 2009, Returnee wrote:

    134

    "However, all recent opinion polls indicate an increasing level of support for further devolution, with support for primary law-making powers now commanding a majority, and diminishing support for abolition of the Assembly".

    It is more than a turn-around, it is a sea change, it is a process whereby extreme unionisim is ever more crushingly rejected by the electorate.

    WE have moved on. Can you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 10:47pm on 04 Sep 2009, Returnee wrote:

    134

    Two polls in Wales:

    1997 2007

    Independence 14% 12%
    Parliament 20% 43%
    Assembly 27% 28%
    No devolution 40% 17%

    The pro Welsh vote is even stronger amongst the under 35 section.

    History is on the side of Wales.

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 08:17am on 05 Sep 2009, mapex55 wrote:

    messages 135 & 137....



    In 133, the message gave back, in more acid terms, that to which 133 was a response, but you my erudite D.Phil, friend, cannot see that, being blinded by your nationalist minded cloud that covers your orbs.


    137.


    How far you will fall when the REAL count is taken?

    History is on the side of the majority, and the majority are those who forever shove the minority westwards, and off the cliff. Unfortunate but true.
    Attempting to erect fences by 'educating' the young, under the terms of nationalism, disguised as 'language', is little more than indoctrination, we know it, and so does the nationalist leadership.

    The unfortunate thing is, the footsoldiers, such as yourself are, as usual for the cannon fodder, being kept in the dark re the agenda of those that would hope to grab Wales for themselves.

    And, when you do go over the edge, there will be no Barnett cushion to fall on, for the simple reason Britain will wake up to the cost, it is already getting there, and soon enough, Westminster will demonstrate just how it will reward the perpetual demands for more, more, more, as Wales, under it's present Assembly menage, and disguise, as the Oliver Twist of the UK, holds out the begging bowl..

    Nor will there be a Mr. Browing rushing along to rescue the urchin region from the clutches of the poverty, and deprivation, to where Wales will be heading if you lot get your way.

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 8:57pm on 06 Sep 2009, osian wrote:

    Could we have a multiscreen view like we do when a number of sporting events are being broadcast on the bbc? Or a programme on a similar format to final score? Where you would have a seperate programme for each of the home nations watching the election across the UK and commenting on the differences across the UK. So in Wales you would have a programme with a Welsh spin on the General Election whilst commentating on the whole of the UK.

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 2:46pm on 07 Sep 2009, Returnee wrote:

    139

    A constructive suggestion. It would have its droll charms.

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 2:47pm on 07 Sep 2009, Returnee wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 142. At 10:20pm on 07 Sep 2009, mapex55 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 143. At 11:22am on 08 Sep 2009, Returnee wrote:

    I suspect I got my doc because I understand how numbers work. Thus I suspect that my apprteciation of the nuances in opinion polls and their trends work. I find facts and realities useful in a debate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 6:51pm on 08 Sep 2009, West-Wales wrote:

    Returnee #143
    I understand how numbers work.
    Congratulations.

    I have little time for opinion polls based on leading and ambiguous questions.
    We know where that leads and how politicians, particularly of the party that set the questions and commissioned the poll, play the answers.

    If you want an example, check out the questionnaire for the
    consultation request for the Language LCO.

    However - somewhere you comment on Plaid coming second in the 2007 Assembly elections.
    Well I'm sure we will agree Politicians can arrange numbers to prove anything.

    So how about this:
    2007 Welsh Assembly Elections.
    Constituency votes
    Plaid - 219,121
    Tories- 218,730

    Close only 391 votes between them

    Now
    Regional Votes
    Plaid - 204,757
    Tories- 209,153

    Not so close - Tories were 4,396 votes ahead.

    So in the 2007 elections,
    Plaid got a total of 423,878 Votes and the Tories got 427,883.

    Now who came second!!! :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 7:35pm on 08 Sep 2009, Jack_Wilkinson wrote:

    What about the 2005 General election? What about the crazy voting system?
    Conservatives vote 297,830 21.4%, they get 3 Mps.

    Plaid vote 174,838 12.6% they get the same 3 Mps???

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 9:00pm on 08 Sep 2009, Jack_Wilkinson wrote:

    In the first assembly vote in 1999, Plaid's vote share was about 28%, well above the Conservatives on 15%. Now, the Conservatives have more than caught up, all these silly claims that the Union is facing oblivion, is a delirious fiction, dreamed up by the needful.
    In the 2005 General election, Plaid came a lowly fourth with 12% of the vote, and when you think that UKIP, will work with Conservatives to protect the Union, no problem.

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 10:25am on 09 Sep 2009, Returnee wrote:

    144

    Splendid! Alas, I was not referring to these but to support for devolution.

    Still, it is good to see the pro devolution, and increasingly pro self determinantion Welsh Conservatives do so well.

    How many votes did the anti devolution parties (the BNP and UKIP) get?

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 10:28pm on 09 Sep 2009, mapex55 wrote:

    message 147....



    BNP/UKIP?....Who cares?


    How many did the Independents get?.... Again who cares?

    The main thing is, whatever they got, at least some were committed enough to actually get off their derrieres and go to vote.


    Also, to ensure a fully representative result at the next election, referendum or whatever, ALL who have the vote, should be COMPELLED to use it.

    No more of this one quarter of the electorate returning a result that favoured what we now have. And which, for the last ten years, has failed Wales... miserably.

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 10:23am on 10 Sep 2009, Returnee wrote:

    148

    Agreed, there is a lot to be said for compulsory voting, but not if it is open to postal ballot abuse.

    So as you say, people ought to walk, drive or even hop along to the polling booth when they are asked to.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.