Wednesday, 30 July 2014


The one hundredth anniversary of the start of the First World War took place on Tuesday, with the anniversary of Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war against Serbia (28th July 1914) it largely passing unnoticed, here at least. The anniversaries of the staggered start of the war will obviously have a much higher profile over the next week. While the focus understandably will be on the events surrounding the start of the war there will also be a focus on the almost inexplicable (at least from the hindsight of our twenty first century perspective) enthusiasm with which the states and many of the peoples of Europe are perceived to have eagerly rushed to war. 

Royal Fusiliers in Mons 22nd August 1914 
The selective remembrance of anniversaries is complex business: June 28th this year marked the anniversary of the assassination in Sarajevo that started the European slide into war. August 1st 1914 saw Germany declare war on Russia and Serbia with France mobilized on the evening of August 2nd, when Germany invaded Belgium and attacked French troops. On August 3rd, Germany declared war on France. August 4th is a more significant date this side of the channel being the date that Britain declared war on Germany, nominally because of the invasion of Belgium. 

Even when it comes to selecting which battles to commemorate the choice will be a complex one as Mons (23rd – 24th August 1914) and La Cateau (26th August 1914) were both relatively small but  largely British battles. They were followed in rapid succession by First Marne (5th and 12th September 1914), First Aisne (13th September (1914-09-13)28th September 1914), La Bassée (10th October – 2nd November 1914) and First Ypres (19th October – 22nd November 1914) Aside for Mons, La Cateau and First Aisne much of the fighting of 1914 (on the Western Front) until Ypres involved mostly French and Belgian troops attempting to hold off the German Armies.

Britain's involvement (aside from at sea) was initially limited to its small regular army and the Territorial Army. The larger British army’s of popular memory never emerged until 1915 and 1916 (conscription came after two years of war). One result of the brutal and sustained fighting of the autumn and early winter of 1914 was that the precision instrument that was the regular army almost ceased to exist. The grim battles of Flanders halted the German advance short of the Channel Ports and Picardy and established the trench line that became the Western Front, which existed from the winter of 1914/1915 until the spring of 1918. 

Then (as now) when a war is underway then understandably (and rightly) our service personnel, their families (and subsequently our veterans) are very much in the public eye. During the last decade successive Westminster governments have worked hard to ensure that our service personnel have had a much higher profile, making use of various important anniversaries of previous conflicts, sporting occasions and regularly promoting armed forces day. As we slowly approach the one hundredth anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War, and another cycle of poignant anniversaries we may expect more of the same.

Yet as the direct involvement of UK service personnel in the cycle of Blair’s wars begins to wind down we should remember how Westminster (with the honourable exception of the 1945 Labour Government) has treated our war veterans after previous war’s ended and faded into memory. We all need to work to ensure that never again does a Westminster Government makes the decision that dead heroes are cheaper and less trouble to maintain than live ones.

Saturday, 26 July 2014


The news that twenty councils in England are considering calling for the so-called "Tesco tax" on supermarkets, which could raise up to £400m a year, has excited some interest. Naturally the Westminster Con-Dem Government has come out and said that additional taxes on supermarkets would push up food prices. Oddly enough the three largest of the Westminster based and focused political parties have a warm if not cozy relationship with the large supermarket chains. This also ignores the fact that a similar tax already operates in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Supporters of the tax believe the supermarkets can afford it, saying it's just a fraction of the costs that supermarkets had to swallow when VAT was raised in 2011. Supermarket retailers are likely to strongly resist the move arguing that they are taxed enough already. They already pay more in business rates, a property-based tax, than any other form of taxation and have been lobbying the Westminster government for a complete rethink on the system. I have no doubt that the larger retailers will also no doubt raise concerns about fresh investment and jobs being put at risk, etc.
Concerns about the economic impact of supermarkets on local economies are nothing new. Some years ago an excellent piece of work on this very subject was produced by 'The Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England' (CPRE) - their report: ‘A Real Choice exposed the real damage (including job losses) done by superstores to local economies something that should be seriously considered in relation to any proposed retail development that would affect our small towns and communities.

The CPRE report should make a valuable indirect contribution to the on-going debate over the future of the Welsh economy. When it comes to the really big issues then a sustainable and prosperous local economy in our communities has to be one of the biggest. It is important to be able to think outside the envelope and make long-term rather than short-term cash focused decisions. The redevelopment, restoration and retention of a living and breathing economic heart in our communities is vital.

Slowly but surely there has been an increased recognition of late of the benefits of local food economies and the important role of local shops and retailers, despite the fact that both the Westminster Government and the Welsh government have increasingly caved into pressures to weaken the ordinary people’s involvement in the planning process. The CPRE report exposed some of the real costs that are paid by local retailers and small businesses and consumers as retail planning policy is increasingly driven to benefit large scale superstore developments, which continue to aggressively expand their market share at the expense of local retailers, suppliers and customers.

Surveys (even as far back as 2005) revealed that 70% of British Shoppers would like to buy local food and 49% would like to buy more than they do. Yet the expansion of the supermarket sector market share at the expense of independent shops and smaller retailers continues pretty much unchecked – despite the spin from the larger retailers what this means is that shoppers will increasingly continue to have less and less  little opportunities to buy fresh, seasonal, traditional and easily traceable distinctive local food.

This is not about nimbyism, because Supermarkets and high quality food stores definitely have their place in the urban and rural economy but their contribution could be significantly enhanced if they stocked more locally grown, produced and clearly labelled local foodstuffs as they do in Brittany, something that would bring benefits to both farmers and consumers alike. 
The continued popularity of local farmers markets across South Wales has shown that the public is more than happy to buy quality local produce and to support local retailers. Yet most supermarkets still have barely between 1% and 2% turnover from local food producers, something that badly serves local food producers and customers alike.

Thursday, 24 July 2014


Most people have probably never heard of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (or TTIP) – an agreement between the EU and the USA, which is being promoted as the biggest ever free trade agreement. The devil may well lie in the detail, as the TTIP, if it is agreed, contains a number of highly controversial proposals which could seriously undermine workers’ rights, affect agriculture, weaken food hygiene, lower quality standards and affect digital privacy laws.
Now international trade is a vital component of our economy and if we want to a strong and vibrant Welsh economy then exports quality Welsh products around the world will play their part. The proposed TTIP, however, won’t help because in its current form it is little more than a charter for multinational corporations to make more money. The problem is that the plans (such as they are) for a free trade zone between the EU and the USA are based on cutting costs, something that will be achieved by lowering quality standards and rolling back hard earned workers’ employment rights.
As noted by Plaid Cymru MEP Jill Evans, probably the section of the agreement that should concern most people are the plans for ‘Investor state dispute settlement’ which would basically would allow foreign (basically US) companies to take governments to court if they act in a way that could reduce investors’ profits. A whole variety of groups including Friends of the Earth Europe have warned that this clause in particular could be invoked by US companies if European governments introduce legislation to improve workers’ rights, including pay, or to improve health or environmental legislation.
On a very basic level this could mean that if at some point a future Welsh Government improved workers’ rights by securing a living wage or ending zero hours contracts or if they enacted strong environmental legislation to combat climate change - then they could be liable to be sued by multinational companies. Already the free-trade agreement in North America, NAFTA, lead to legal threats to Canada because of a moratorium on fracking in Quebec. It has to be unacceptable for democratic governments to end up in a position where multi-national companies can take them to court when they have acted in the best interests of their people, rather than simply acting to enable corporate profits to be ramped up.
Disturbingly, aside from the fact that, not untypically, most the discussions and negotiations have been carried out behind closed doors, when what’s needed is an honest and open debate about what TTIP should include, based on what is best for people, not just for multi-national companies and US trade. We should be concerned that there have already been calls from US senators for an end to European specialist product definitions which act a mark of quality, in Wales they include Welsh beef and lamb, as well as Pembrokeshire Early potatoes and Halen Mon.

Saturday, 19 July 2014


So there we have it the Labour in Wales Welsh Government has made it decision to spend at least £ 1 billion pounds (more like £1.2 billion according to some estimates) of tax payers money on a single project to build a new road. This questionable and controversial decision has been taken despite there being more cost effective alternatives which would allow much needed investment in infrastructure across the rest of Wales.

The Labour Minister made the decision to order the construction of a new stretch of the M4 to the south of Newport between junctions 23 and 29. No one will argue that there are not problems with the M4 when it comes to traffic congestion, especially around the Brynglas tunnels. It’s the choice of route, the potential cost, the environmental impact and whether or not the Minister’s choice will be good value for money that have caused things to kick off.

To this can be added the way the Minister announced her decision unexpectedly and in an unscheduled way, literally on the last sitting day of the Assembly’s term. She chose not to respond to a letter from the Environment Committee before she announced the decision - something that has not happened before. Additionally, so far at least, no questioning of the Minister has ever been allowed to take place on the issue of the M4 relief road – in essence so very New Labour or perhaps so very Labour in Wales.

As for value for money a few years ago the cost was estimated by the Welsh Government as being between £800 million and £1 billion (and possibly up to £1.2 billion) depending on the route. The £1 billon ‘black route’ was Labour’s ‘preferred option’ and it is believed that this is what they have chosen. So far no information on how the project will be paid for has been produced. With the limited powers that the Welsh Government has Wales will be allowed to borrow up to a limit of £500 million in the recent deal with the UK government. All of that will be used up on this project with the other £500 million pounds or so will have to be found from elsewhere. 

The ‘black route’ would cross over the environmentally sensitive Gwent Levels, which are an important environmental site and wildlife habitat, and there are problems with building motorways more generally. Environmental, Business and other groups of people raised concerns during the (what many people consider to a deeply flawed) consultation process on what route to choose, that the Welsh Government over-estimated predicted traffic levels, made use of old data and did not fully carry out environmental checks that are meant to happen as part of making the decision.

By opting for the ‘Black route’ the Welsh Government has pretty much decided to use up all of the Welsh borrowing limit in one go and on one scheme. Even this decision won’t find all the necessary funds for the project which means that they will need to find the money from other budgets, which means projects elsewhere in the country will have to be delayed or even cancelled. 

However, you look at this, this is bad news for most parts of the country and means that investment is not being distributed fairly by the Labour in Wales Government. There is no detail on how the much needed South-East Wales Metro project can be funded (unless it is reduced in scale and made a less ambitious scheme), and there is nothing in the pipeline for the A55 or for west Wales beyond what has already been agreed.

Now no one is saying that there is not a need to improve east west communication links along the M4 corridor but any investment in infrastructure has to be affordable, sustainable and sensible. Plaid continues to support investment in the M4 corridor around Newport. When Plaid was last in government (between 2007 and 2011) investment in transport infrastructure included a substantial investment in the existing M4 along with investment in other areas of Wales.

Perhaps more disturbingly, this decision pretty much means that the hands of the future Welsh Governments will be tied into paying for this project. The Westminster government’s attempt to link borrowing powers and tax raising powers with the proposed M4 Relief Road is entirely unacceptable. The London-based Westminster government has no right to predetermine what the priorities, economic or otherwise of any Welsh Government should be.

We need a whole Wales transport plan and the vision to go with it. The problem is that the current Labour in Wales Government is perceived to lack any coherent all Wales vision in so many areas– this is a basic failure to stand up for Wales and is simply unacceptable. 

Now perhaps the reason for the failure may be down to a combination of poor advice from civil servants to ministers, simply a lack of vision or perhaps more disturbingly simply a marked indifference on the part of elected representatives of Labour in Wales to any other parts of Wales that fall outside what they perceive to be their territory.

Tuesday, 15 July 2014

What of Wales?

Leanne Wood AM / AC putting Wales at the heart of the constitutional debate in Britain.

Speech given by Leanne Wood AM at UCL, June 11th 2014.

I’m delighted to have this opportunity to address you this evening in what is a momentous year.

The headline theme for my lecture this evening is ‘What of Wales? Putting Wales at the heart of the constitutional debate in Britain.’

It is perhaps symptomatic of Wales’ historic standing as a constitutional entity that debates of this nature usually occur in the context of events in another part of the UK.

The very fact that we have to ask ‘What of Wales?’ highlights the need for Wales to insist on being a participant in wider constitutional matters rather than languishing as it has done – too often - as a spectator.

This evening I will be addressing three broad themes that I believe are essential for Wales to find and express its voice as a nation – a participant nation.

It was Aneurin Bevan who said ‘this is my truth, tell me yours’ and so here’s my truth.

Firstly, I will outline the case for a comprehensive constitutional framework that would provide for Wales the basis to function as a democracy, initially, within the context of the British State, but in time as an independent country.

Secondly, I will discuss my vision for a renewed partnership between the nations of these islands, and how that could function.

And finally, having addressed the mechanics of an independent Wales, I will elaborate on why independence is desirable.

But before addressing each of those broad areas, I’d like to set out the current and more recent context to the constitutional debate under the process of devolution.

Last weekend marked the 15th anniversary of the convening of Wales’ first national legislature in several hundred years.

Indeed, the convening of our national assembly at that point was more significant than the powers – or lack of powers – bestowed upon it.

It was said that Wales could have voted itself out of existence had that tiny ‘yes’ vote in the 1997 referendum not materialised.

That the people of Wales were so tentative in that original referendum tells us a great deal about the historic psychology of Welsh nationhood.

That after several centuries without a distinct Welsh government and lacking many civic institutions, Welsh nationhood had found different outlets of expression.

Cultural and sporting; identity based without a significant element of civic nationhood such as a legislature or distinct legal system. 

Indeed, the fact that Welsh nationhood survived at all was a miracle.

But the absence, through the centuries, of Welsh statehood, has resulted in vulnerabilities in our national make-up.

As a constitutional entity, Wales has found itself trailing behind the other nations of these islands, often having to settle for well below ‘the going rate’ for powers over its own affairs.

That is evidenced today as the ‘devolution going rate’ set in Scotland is not being matched in pace by that offered by Unionist parties to Wales.

There is no logical reason for this difference in offering.

Such gulfs in offering have two consequences: one, even before new Welsh powers come into being, they are seen to be inadequate.

Secondly, such inadequacies lead to instant calls for further devolution which distract policy makers and others from the delivery of services and improvements in the lives of the people of Wales.

Indeed, the number of reports, commissions and inquiries into further devolution has enjoyed greater public prominence than almost any legislation passed by the National Assembly to date.

Within just three years of the National Assembly’s creation, the Richard Commission was convened by the Welsh Government to look at further powers for Wales.

Since then of course, we’ve had many others including most recently, the Silk Commission.

The fact that the Silk Commission was established by the current UK Government was a tacit recognition of the unsatisfactory state of devolution in Wales.

We want to see Wales flourish as a nation in every respect, including constitutionally.

We continue to hope that the UK Government will implement in full and without undue delay the recommendations of the Silk Commission.

Both the first and second reports of that Commission were unanimously supported by all commissioners and received widespread support across Wales.

Cherry-picking the two reports will only lead to unsatisfactory and inadequate dispensations.

The people of Wales deserve better than that. Devolution – it is said – is a process not an event.

I agree wholeheartedly that every nation’s constitutional process is one that develops over time.

But is it time for devolution as a process to end in respect of Wales and the other nations of the British State?

This is the basis for the first broad theme I want to address this evening; a new framework for Wales in the context of the UK that could be the basis for the next period of Wales’ journey as a constitutional entity. 

Devolution - which is essentially about power retained - must give way to self-government.

The difference between the two might appear at first to be semantic only, but it is far more profound than that.

Devolution is essentially characterised by Westminster deciding when and what powers to devolve to the National Assembly for Wales.

And as I have already said, such a system results often in inadequate outcomes for Wales, which are accentuated further by the greater powers afforded to other parts of the UK.

 We have – whilst not technically a powers reserved model – a model where Wales’ constitution is reserved entirely to Westminster.

This reflects the out-dated Westminster paradigm that Parliament is sovereign. The model of Welsh self-government I propose is the opposite.

I propose a model of Welsh self-government where the people of Wales themselves are sovereign.

This is nothing new in itself from Plaid Cymru; it has been a key principle of our politics since our inception.

But I want that principle to be applied to modern Wales – to how Wales is governed.

It is the people of Wales themselves who should decide what powers their government and national assembly should have, it is they who determine what powers to share or cede with other nations and parliaments.

I believe this point is particularly pertinent now in the context of their being a government in Westminster that comprises two parties who did not win a mandate from Wales.

Indeed, neither party, in their modern incarnations have ever won a majority of votes or seats at a General Election in Wales.

For the issue of the Welsh constitution to be in the almost exclusive hands of Westminster governments is an oddity that must be addressed, and in my view, it can only be addressed by devolution yielding to self-government.

In practical terms, the expression and the implementation of the sovereignty of the people should start and end with the people themselves.

There is a direct link between sovereignty and democracy.

To unlock this potential into reality would require a new arrangement between the governments of Wales and Westminster.

I believe precedent already exists for such agreement within the British State.

The Edinburgh agreement between the governments of Scotland and Westminster, implemented through an Order in Council provides that precedent.

That agreement created the constitutional basis for Scotland to hold its own referendum on whether or not to become and independent country, and it was secured because the people of Scotland, through electing an SNP government, were deemed to have provided that government with a mandate to hold such a referendum.

That mandate was recognised of course without the Scottish parliament or government technically having legal competence to do so.

That ability to recognise the will of the people and the democratic mandate of a government outside Westminster must be replicated in Wales.

And so this evening, I am able to announce that a Plaid Cymru government in 2016 would seek an agreement with the UK government to implement by Order in Council, the devolution of the Welsh constitution, including the right to hold binding referenda, to the National Assembly for Wales.

That will formally begin a new era of self-government, and with a Plaid Cymru Welsh Government that would result in a new, written constitution for the Welsh nation and a new relationship between Wales and the British State.

This relationship would be one of equality and partnership not of distrust and antagonism.

From that point, Wales would formally be freely associating with the UK government, and it will be the people of Wales themselves who will determine what powers to share with Westminster.

But I don’t want us as a country to miss out on an opportunity to develop a constitution and the basis for a new way of doing politics.

I do not recommend the convening of a new commission and I would be eager for the new process to be people-led, not politician-led.

Despite the turmoil at the time and the disappointing set-backs since, the way in which the people led the direction and writing of the new constitution of Iceland following the crash of 2008 was inspiring.

So Wales’ constitution should be written and led by the people of Wales.

A citizen-led constitution would help us reinvigorate the politics of Wales generally, it would put power back in the hands of the people rather than with a small elite and by coming together we could pool our collective intelligence to build not just the mechanics of government but the basis for a new nationhood.
As well as considering powers and competencies, I’d like the process to consider the kind of society we want to build and the kind of communities we want to live in.

In such constitutional circumstances, there would need to be formal mechanisms for cooperation between the governments at either end of the M4.

There should also be a renewal of arrangements between the nations of these islands as a whole.

This matter brings me to the second theme of this lecture; creating a new framework for cooperation in these islands.

On this matter, there are two concurrent threads that need to be addressed, firstly joint working and cooperation within and between the constituent parts of the British State for the duration of Wales’ membership of it and secondly, the relationships between the nations of these islands as a whole, whether or not they are members of the United Kingdom.

That all the nations of these islands agree and aspire to close cooperation on matters of mutual interest is very welcome and provides the basis for strengthened cooperation.

It is often a misconception – sometimes intentionally peddled by Unionists – that for those of us who support the creation of an independent Wales – that this is somehow at odds with the concept of cooperation with our nearest neighbours.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Welsh nationalism, with its roots firmly fixed in civic nationalism, sees Wales as part of a family of nations, not in competition but in collaboration with all others, including those in the British isles.

Indeed, former Plaid Cymru president Gwynfor Evans proposed what he called a Britannic Confederation.

We support the establishment of an independent Wales in order to join the international community, not to somehow retreat into an inward-looking isolationism.

Indeed, we are enthusiastic about cooperation within these islands.

The difference between us and Unionists on this point is that for them, the concept is tied and restricted to the existence of the British State.

This, in my view is an unnecessary limitation not only on Wales’ ability to realise its national potential, but it limits too the ability of our nations to work closely together in a spirit of partnership and equality.

As an initial step, a self-governing Wales as part of the UK would require a framework where issues of disagreement could be resolved and crucially where discussions can occur that relate to matters decided on Wales’ behalf at Westminster.

We have at present the Joint Ministerial Committee where ministers from the devolved governments can meet with UK ministers.

That committee underpins the relationship between the governments.

This was formalised in a Memorandum of Understanding. I would like to see the Joint Ministerial Committee reformed for the new self-governing Wales I propose.

Reformed so that it is responsive to the needs of Wales.

That would require a new Memorandum of Understanding.

As part of a new Memorandum I propose arrangements for accommodating dialogue on matters such as social protection, defence and foreign affairs.

This I believe is essential because social protection in particular has a significant impact on so many other areas of policy that to leave Wales without a voice would hinder the Welsh government’s ability to develop the Welsh economy and wider social policy.

Even if this understanding did not result in the transfer of responsibility for the administration of social protection to Wales – which incidentally – I believe it should, then alternative arrangements could be found for Wales in the event of unpalatable policies being pursued by Westminster.

Such an arrangement could have resulted in alternatives being sought in Wales to the dreaded bedroom tax.

It is perhaps one of the clearest examples of a government in Westminster – with no mandate from Wales – implementing a policy in direct conflict with the values of the people of Wales.

Transforming the JMC into a more purposeful council of ministers should not only be a forum of arbitration, it should be one of cooperating too.

I have spoken in the past of my desire to see Wales play a leading role when the UK next hosts the presidency of the Council of the European Union in 2017.

The renewed JMC could be the mechanism by which sharing the EU presidency in 2017 could be detailed, including agreement on pursuing the objectives of the then Welsh government in summit talks that would be part of a shared UK presidency between the constituent nations.

I want to make it clear that my reasons for seeking a shared EU presidency is not for symbolic or party political reasons.

There would be significant opportunities for Wales in sharing the presidency that would simply not be realised by any Westminster government, of any party political colour.

By sharing the UK’s presidency of the EU in 2017, a Welsh Government led by Plaid Cymru would seek a new social chapter for the EU.

If there is one great lesson to be learnt from the recent European elections, it is that politics in general, but the EU especially have become more distant from citizens and less responsive to people’s needs.

Indeed, it isn’t voters that have disengaged with the EU, it is the EU that has disengaged with people.

Since the financial crisis and its aftermath, securing the stability of the Eurozone and the liquidity of the financial sector have been at the forefront of the EU’s policy objectives.

But a Plaid Cymru Welsh Government would seek to use the opportunity of an EU Summit in Wales in 2017 for a new European Social Chapter.

The basis for this new social chapter could include eradicating unfair employment practices such as the abuse of zero-hours contracts, it could strengthen and build on measures that seek to combat the exploitation of workers – especially exploitation that leads to undercutting wages and a new social chapter could find Europe-wide agreement to tackle the growing and deeply concerning issue of youth unemployment.

Wales will never fully be able to express its outward-looking aspirations as part of the British State, but for the duration of our membership of the UK we should exploit the few opportunities we have to do so.

 Ultimately, Wales’ voice within these islands will be best expressed within the context of partnership and the foundations of that partnership already exist in the form of the British-Irish Council.

It is my hope to see Wales become a member of that council as an independent state, but one of the strengths of that organisation is that it includes all the nations of these islands regardless of their constitutional status.

There are currently two independent governments, three devolved governments and three Crown Dependencies participating.

As an umbrella organisation for co-operation, I believe the British-Irish Council could emerge as the primary body within these islands.

Part of its structure could involve facilitating bi- and multilateral arrangements between the nations on shared assets and shared institutions that will occur following the transition of the British State after September’s referendum.

Indeed, the Good Friday Agreement which established the British-Irish Council already provides a framework for agreements between two or more of its member governments.

It would mean for example, that in the future, those independent nations that share the pound as their currency, could formalise agreements as part of a wider British Isles context.

It could mean that the CTA – the Common Travel Area that guarantees freedom of travel within these islands could formally become a matter dealt with by the institutions of the British-Irish Council.

The emergence of the Council as the focal point for co-operation in these islands, even on matters in which not every single country is directly involved, would help us redefine our friendship with each other and would aid us in emulating our Nordic neighbours and their model of co-operation.

They have provided a comprehensive framework of partnership through independence that we in these islands should seek to replicate.

And as the British-Irish Council grows in stature and in responsibility there will be increased need for greater accountability and transparency.

It is my hope that in time a roving presidency could emerge as part of the Council’s work, with each of the eight governments having an opportunity to host and set the agenda for that body for a period of time, in a similar way to the presidency of the EU Council.

There will always be a shared bond and close relationship between the nations of these islands.

That bond will not be limited or even determined necessarily by the constitutional status of each nation.
That bond transcends constitutions and includes family ties, a single market and freedom of movement.

Even in the very difficult context that Ireland emerged from the United Kingdom as an independent country, the bond with that country was recognised in UK legislation.

The Ireland Act 1949 included a provision, aptly entitled ‘Republic of Ireland not a foreign country.’

It included an almost poetic passage – at least by legislative standards – that read as follows:

‘It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty’s dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom…’

For a true partnership to thrive within these islands, equality must be its foundation.

That is why, ultimately for Wales to emerge as a partner in these islands and beyond, and for us to have the opportunity to forge our own future, the emergence of Wales from the shadows as an independent country is vital.

That Wales is a nation is beyond debate.

We have all the characteristics of a nation and over the past fifteen years, we’ve began to develop as a state.

But as well as treasuring the characteristics that make us a nation, we need also to face up to the obligations and responsibilities of nationhood too.

The pursuit of independence means seeking the tools to face and make difficult decisions and tough choices.

Independence is not an end in itself.

It is the beginning of a period of endless opportunity.

Above all, independence is normal.

Few countries on earth unconditionally cede direct domestic powers to another country.

Indeed, it is Wales’ current constitutional position that is exceptional.

That said, every country has its own national journey and no two national journeys are ever the same.

Earlier I outlined my vision for the process of devolution to give way to a new period of self-government.

Self-government that stems from the people and is determined by them.

I see that chapter in Wales’ development as being preceding a national debate in Wales on the country becoming an independent nation.

For too long, independence in the Welsh context has been treated as a pipe-dream as an aspiration so distant it has been seen as unrealistic and unworkable.

But this evening, I want to elevate the debate and I can reveal that Plaid Cymru will shortly be publishing plans to begin the debate on Wales’ future.

It will comprise the vision for self-government within the UK that I have already outlined and it will elaborate and map out how an independent Wales would function, the kind of social Wales a Plaid Cymru government would seek to build with the tools of independence.

My unswerving priority as leader of Plaid Cymru is to tackle the deep structural flaws in our country’s economy that have, and continue to hold us back.

We will be limited within the UK on what we can achieve.

One of the benefits of independence are the enhanced economic levers that a nation can utilise for the good of its citizens.

But within the United Kingdom, a Plaid Cymru government will to all it can for jobs and sustainable growth.

A buoyant economy is the basis upon which we can eradicate poverty and reduce inequality and build world class public services.

That is why independence is essential.

It is not about flags and anthems or any other symbols. 

It’s about the society that we want to live in.

The growing imbalance within the British State should be a renewed warning to us of the perils of continued centralisation of policy decisions and of the hegemony of elites in Westminster.

That centralisation accelerated with the intentional de-industrialisation of Wales and the reckless gamble of the entire UK economy on the roulette table of London’s financial service sector.

And be in no doubt to that an independent Wales is not for me a simple swapping of Westminster for Cardiff Bay.

It is about empowering our national institutions yes, but that empowerment must too result in empowering Wales’ communities – government by community as the great Ioan Bowen Ress put it.

Again, just as a Plaid Cymru Welsh Government in its first term will facilitate a people-led constitution for a self-governing Wales within the UK, so too will we facilitate a citizen-led process for an independent Wales.

The social and political carpenters and stone masons responsible for the construction of a new country should be those who will live and work within that structure.

Plaid Cymru will set out our proposals, our vision, in our forthcoming white paper but that document will form the starting point of the debate, it will not be the conclusion of our national conversation.

And our national conversation must begin.

Let’s start that conversation by recognising that Wales could be independent, in a similar fashion to the debate in Scotland where the debate is about whether or not Scotland should become independent.

Wales has all the raw ingredients for success as an independent member of the family of nations in these islands, Europe and the wider world.

We have an abundance of natural resources: we’re a net exporter of electricity, we’re home to the world’s second highest tidal range, we are leaders in fields such as marine sciences, we have a vibrant advanced manufacturing sector a world-class food and drinks sector and we’re among the most desirable tourist destinations on the planet.

Yes, there’s a lot more we could do, but we’ve certainly got what it takes.

Wales could be independent.

Wales should, in my view be independent because despite all that natural wealth, despite our historic position as an industrial powerhouse and despite the unquestionable ability of our people, we’re a part of one of the world’s most unequal, imbalanced and centralised states.

Whilst being a member of the world’s sixth largest economy, 79,000 people in Wales last year needed the support of a foodbank.

Whilst 2,700 City bankers having their financial rewards increased by a third last year a staggering 31 per cent of Welsh workers earned less than the living wage.

Whilst the income of the top 0.1 per cent of earners in the UK has grown at a far faster rate than the rest, a billion pounds was wiped out of the Welsh economy this year in social protection cuts.

Wales could be independent, because we are a nation and we have the basis for success.

Wales should be independent because we need the tools to build the fair, social Wales that won’t be built on our behalf by the British State.

A distinguishing feature of those of us who support independence from those who do not, is that we want to end dependency.

What political party or politician would not want his or her country to be in a position of such confidence where independence is at least seen as a viable option, even if it were decided not to take that option?

Why on earth would any individual, community or country aspire to a future of perpetual dependency?

Independence won’t occur today or tomorrow but for those politicians who say it should never happen, or ever be considered, I ask them why they are involved in Welsh public life in the first place?

Are they, in fact, admitting that they will fail to get our country to a point where it is accepted as a choice for the people of Wales to make? 

I began this evening by posing the question ‘What of Wales?’

And I also explained that the lecture this evening would – as Aneurin Bevan put it – be my truth.

As Plaid Cymru begins an exciting period in the coming weeks and months in leading the debate on our country’s future, I look forward to asking our fellow citizens to tell us their truth.

Read some of the commentary on the speech here at UCL, in The Guardian, on BBC Wales, on Wales Online and here on Click on Wales.

Wednesday, 9 July 2014


We have reached the point where the consumption of soft drinks with excessive sugar is recognised as being unhealthy. Drinking a can of 'pop' a day increases the risk of developing diabetes by 22%. This has been recognised by the Royal College of Paediatrics, the chief medical officer of England and over 60 other bodies and groups who have supported Plaid’s idea of such a levy on sugary drinks.

The Party of Wales has produced a comprehensive paper which explores the introduction of a sugary drinks levy of 20% in Wales – the recently published paper makes interesting reading. The paper sets out how Wales can adopt this innovative tax with the fiscal powers that it is set to receive through the Wales Bill, in order to lead the way on public health.

The research’s main conclusion is that bringing in such a tax in Wales:

  • It would reduce the number of obese people by 8,300 and those who are overweight by 13,300
  •  It would result in a 15% reduction in the sugary drinks consumed.

 There would also be wider beneficial impacts on our public health:

  • Our expenditure on diabetes would reduce in the long term
  • The numbers of cases of diabetes would be reduced, especially amongst those on low incomes.
  • A reduction in incidence of heart would follow
  • Tooth decay would be reduced
  • Manufacturers would lower sugar levels in drinks - so the products consumed would be healthier. 

The full details of the tax on Sugary drinks would subject to consultation - the research based the above effects on taxing drinks with added sugar (but not fruit juices). This is a refreshingly creative use of the new fiscal powers could help in the fight against rising obesity levels. 

The independent and thorough research examines the potential revenues that could be raised from the tax, and what effects it could have on people's behaviour. At one level, this proposal is about the art of the possible, while the proposals won’t eliminate obesity, the tax will help to contribute to achieving this goal - which moves things forward.