So could it just possibly be that such a high percentage of people don't take part in Welsh-only elections because the papers they choose to read (for whatever reason, the sports coverage, the telly section, the lightweight style, the easy-going trivia, or just page 3) never mention them?
Whereas these same papers tend to come down heavily for one side or another during UK-wide elections?
I agree with you 100% that all people, not just the Welsh, have the RIGHT to buy whatever newspaper they want. Where is there evidence that Plaid or its supporters want to stop this? Oh, I see. You haven't any, because it isn't true.
As to the rest of your statement, that people in Wales aren't interested in what happens in Wales, I couldn't disagree with you more. It's just that the London-based media, as the article referred to in 25 points out, does not give people the opportunity to do so. The London bubble overshadows everything. English members of my family in Manchester say pretty much the same thing. It's not a "Welsh" problem.
Re your final remark: not everyone in Wales seems to regard the place with the same contempt you seem to. Where does all your self-disparagement come from? Where does it get you?
Just out of interest, which team did you support in the 6 Nations? Italy, France, or Britain?
I think you can treat John Tyler's comment as a flippant remark.
His judgement of Plaid policy solely from the "personal musings" of a certain Miserable Old F--- is about as accurate as trying to gauge mainstream Conservative thought from the sentiments contained in the blogspot of a certain John Tyler.
Read what I wrote: any plans to make illegal the legitimate views of Plaid Cymru and the SNP (e.g. by not giving them space to operate in a democratic society or preventing them from trying to achieve their political ends peacefully and within the constraints of a consensual process) would place the perpetrators (and I don't think for one minute that TellingmewhatIknowalready has that power, or would even want to have it, in fact I use the Conditional) on a par with the Nazis.
Now, tell us truthfully, even you wish that Plaid Cymru and the SNP didn't exist, don't you?
I agree with what you write but I think the figures you meant to give are 533 to 117, a ratio of 82% : 18%.
Under the ConDem's proposals to reduce the size of the House of Commons, England's representation in relation to the UK's smaller nations will be increased even further, i.e. 502 to 98, a ratio of 83.7% to 16.3%.
1. The first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia entry "British Nationalism" puts it quite succinctly. I quote:
"British nationalism is a form of nationalism that promotes the United Kingdom as a focus for national identity, specifically Britishness. In a broad sense it includes political and social movements, sentiment inspired by a love for British culture and history, and a sense of pride in being British. British nationalism is closely associated with British unionism and is characterised as a "powerful but ambivalent force in British politics", as an "inclusionary and civic form of nationalism, emphasising the union between England and Scotland", as well as "embracing strong native national identities" and being ethnically British.
British nationalism has broad support across the political spectrum in the United Kingdom; from the Euroscepticism of the centre-right United Kingdom Independence Party and far-right British National Party, to the principally centre-right Conservative Party, to the centrist to centre-left Liberal Democrats and the centre-left Labour Party. Politicians, such as British Prime Minister David Cameron of the Conservative Party and his direct predecessor Gordon Brown of the Labour Party, have sought to promote British nationalism as a progressive cause." End of quote.
And yet you deny you are a British Nationalist? If you wish to quibble, then perhaps you'd be more comfortable with the term "British Unionist"? No difference, as far as I'm concerned.
2. You say that Plaid Cymru "has started the slide into political history". A tad premature, perhaps. You will recall that the Conservatives were totally wiped out at the 1997 and 2001 Westminster elections in Wales, and yet bounced back to second spot in the elections in 2010. All your grandstanding will not change the fact that this is the nature of politics. There are both swings AND roundabouts in the fairground, and what goes around, comes around.
As others have pointed out, over 19% of votes cast in these latest Assembly elections does not indicate "rejection by the electorate of Wales". We'll wait; we aren't going away.
I think you are being duplicitous. You deny being a Brit Nat yet you write (comment 17 on the "First Minister second time around" thread):
"when Scotland leaves the Union the Union Jack will just become our national flag, a visual representation of the British people, we will remain the British people, except possibly in the minds of the nationalist elements."
The typical comment of a Brit Nat. Do you never learn?
After the painful experience of Northern Ireland, in terms of the lives sacrificed in civil strife and the horrific costs involved in trying to achieve a solution, you are still prepared to risk the same scenario in splitting another counttry for your own narrow political ends? Shame on you.
Re the divorce of Scotland from the rest of the UK: as in any union, if one partner decides to leave, unfortuntely the other partner has little say in the matter. If the Scots therefore do decide to end the union, all the voting and shouting by the rest of the UK will not prevent them from doing so.
I know I'm banging on at the same drum, but with d'Hondt that's exactly what happened: you got to vote for a person, your constituency AM.
BUT if you live in a constituency where your chosen party doesn't have a hope in hell's chance of getting elected (e.g Conservative in the South Wales Valleys or, with a little more chance of success, Labour in the Mid and West Wales region where they picked up an extra 2 regional AM seats as opposed to only 1 out of 8 constituency seats), then your vote isn't wasted either.
That, for me, is still fairer than First-Past-The-Post.
And please stop this "genie back in the bottle" hubris. Didn't you know that genies always grant three wishes? I'm sure that Plaid, after more than 80 years waiting, isn't going to be non-plussed by having to wait a couple of elections more.
In last week's referendum, the electorate wasn't asked "which is fairer?" They were asked which system they wanted, Alternative Vote or First-Past-The-Post.
Proportional representation wasn't even on the ballot.
And remember, under the d'Hondt system used in Wales, in last week's election the Conservatives obtained only 6 constituency AMs , but 8 regional AMs. In other words, under the FPTP system, Conservative representation would have been more than halved.
D'Hondt tell me this is what you would have preferred, or that it's fairer!
The reasoning behind the existence of the list AMs is as follows, taking Peter Black in the South Wales West region as example:
In the 7 constituency votes making up this region, the total vote was 154,515 while the total LibDem vote was 12,965, or 8.4%. The votes of 8.4% of the electorate under First-Past-The-Post are completely ignored.
But in the region as a whole there are 11 AMs: 7 constituency and 4 regional AMs. 8.4% of 11 AMs is 0.924 of an AM which is as close as damn it to 1 AM. Hence the election of Peter Black.
It means that those votes at the constituency level which would otherwise be totally ignored under FPTP are recouped with the regional list AMs. A lot of people who would not be represented at all in the Assembly are able to make their voices heard, even if not by a directly elected constituency AM.
Simply, à la Jack Wilkinson, it would help her to be a better functioning member of the planet National Assembly of Wales. Some of the awkward natives are going to want to speak in the local (non-functional?) lingo, so she might be able to get her oar in quicker and keep them under control.