Welsh Political News

I have still not sorted out my ISP problems, so I apologise for not giving hat-tips or links to others who have made pertinent comments about the subject of this post.

I have mentioned before that I am not a supporter of devolution. My personal view about a referendum is bring it on, win or lose the Scottish type stage in the evolution of devolution argument will dead,either way, and nationalists can go on to argue the case for independence.

Despite the fact that I couldn't give a bugger about the result of a referendum, I do appreciate that Peter Hain makes a fair point when he says that those who believe in devolution as a means in itself or as a means to an end won't want to call a referendum that fails. Mr Hain says that a referendum called within the next four years will be lost.

Peter might be a piss poor politician, but Dr Hain is a distinguished academic. As an academic Dr Hain knows that one can't make a premise without proving it. But this is exactly what Dr Hain has done on at least 4 occasions since last May. He has stated, categorically, that a referendum held before 2011 can't be won, but he has offered no reason or proof for his premise, other than his own belief.

The academic response to Dr Hain's unproved premise is that there is no proof available. The political response is that there is proof but that the proof is too embarrassing for the Labour Party - that if a referendum is called within the present Assembly term Peter Hain knows that too many Labour MP's will renege on the All Wales and campaign for a No vote.

So where does that leave Plaid?

HAD

And had by its own left wing who put their own isms before the national cause!

I have still not sorted out my ISP problems, so I apologise for not giving hat-tips or links to others who have made pertinent comments about the subject of this post.

I have mentioned before that I am not a supporter of devolution. My personal view about a referendum is bring it on, win or lose the Scottish type stage in the evolution of devolution argument will dead,either way, and nationalists can go on to argue the case for independence.

Despite the fact that I couldn’t give a bugger about the result of a referendum, I do appreciate that Peter Hain makes a fair point when he says that those who believe in devolution as a means in itself or as a means to an end won’t want to call a referendum that fails. Mr Hain says that a referendum called within the next four years will be lost.

Peter might be a piss poor politician, but Dr Hain is a distinguished academic. As an academic Dr Hain knows that one can’t make a premise without proving it. But this is exactly what Dr Hain has done on at least 4 occasions since last May. He has stated, categorically, that a referendum held before 2011 can’t be won, but he has offered no reason or proof for his premise, other than his own belief.

The academic response to Dr Hain’s unproved premise is that there is no proof available. The political response is that there is proof but that the proof is too embarrassing for the Labour Party - that if a referendum is called within the present Assembly term Peter Hain knows that too many Labour MP’s will renege on the All Wales and campaign for a No vote.

So where does that leave Plaid?

HAD

And had by its own left wing who put their own isms before the national cause!

I have just noticed this article on the BBC website relating to action being taken against Bridgend Council following ‘clearance work’ at Island Farm.   Island Farm has been exceptionally important to the area for many years.  Not only in historical terms as a PoW camp but also led to the Labour administration being ousted at [...]

It is remarkable that half of all jobs that Labour have created since they came to Power have gone to immigrants. I look forward to making this point the nest time Andrew Davies drones on about the jobs they have created! In pure economic terms, there is no issue with immigrants taking the jobs that have [...]

More on Hain – how long before his comments acquire a “gate” suffix? Adam Price says I acknowledge the need for Labour to state where they stand on a referendum. Actually, I don't. That statement exists in the fact of the agreement itself, and has not been countermanded. If the Convention had been mothballed, if the SofS had declared his intent to veto (or even used the "v" word) Plaid might

I'll be working on my Open University A215 Creative Writing assignment this evening, TMA (Tutor Marked Assessment) 1, so until I finish, blogging should be light.

And Happy Hallowe'en.

• David Cornock notes Nick Cleggs threat to break the law over ID Cards.
• Bethan Jenkins opens up her blog for the first in her “Guest Bloggers” section. This week it is SNP MSP Jaime Hepburn.
• Rebellion Sucks notes Labour’s assault on national self-determination.
• Independence Cymru looks at Peter Hain’s referendum comments.
• Normal Mouth defends the Secretary of State for Wales.
• Ordovicius looks at Chris Bryant’s views on public broadcasting and the finance for airing those views. He also notes Plaid’s alternative Queens Speech.

Back from London and off now for a few days (shamelessly flogging CDs ... ) I'll resume the blogging on Monday. Richard Harries may be glad to know I'm typing this from the study, rather than Peter Hain's cellar. P.S....

Chickyog has bust his bandwidth limit. Must have written something good. Try again at the weekend. Tags: chicken yoghurt, justin mckeating

Ceredig posts on the Peter Hain-Plaid Cymru row and does a better job of explaining Nationalist angst than the serried ranks of the party's elected representatives. I don't demur from much of it, although I think s/he is in error to interpret Hain's intervention as an implied threat to veto. I believe the Welsh Sec. is doing what he does very well; retaining the confidence of those MPs