I am happy to see that the direct relationship between accountability and revenue raising capacity (something I have argued for many years) is finally being acknowledged (officially) within the highest government circles.

However, I am doubtful that this apparent volte face will signal the step change in devolution policy formulation so desperately required across the entire UK.

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England 

It's difficult to understand on what grounds the British could object to a Scottish terrestrial channel.  They told us that devolution was all about "celebrating difference" - what better way to celebrate than with your own national TV station?

Well done on the blog design, it's so much better.

“The battle has yet to begin and we seem to have strange bedfellows aligned under the quilt.”

Stonemason, haven’t you noticed our new politics in Wales? We may indeed see a cross-party ‘yes’ referendum campaign (Labour/Lib Dems/Cons/Plaid) against a cross-party ‘no’ campaign (Labour/Lib Dems/Cons) but that would hardly be news.

It’s not that long ago that any agreement between Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru would have had to be prefaced with the words ‘no spitting, no biting …’ but they’ve managed to maintain a coalition government for over year.

As for the Welsh Conservatives proposed threesome with the ‘Nats’ and the Lib Dems in the Assembly? Well, Jackie Collins couldn’t have made that one up.

Following the local elections in May, a new epithet was coined for Wales: Gwlad y Glymblaid - the Land of Coalition. We have a Lib Dem/Plaid Cymru coalition running Cardiff, a Con/Lib Dem coalition in Newport. In Ceredigion Plaid Cymru the largest party is in opposition to a Lib Dem/Labour/Independents coalition while in Conwy, again the largest group, the Conservatives in this case, is kept out by a Plaid/Labour/Lib Dem/Independents coalition.

We’ve moved away from what had become sterile one-partism. Anything goes … Having said that the politicians may be ahead of the electorate. The Welsh have often managed to combine support for radical politics with an innate conservatism.

This has a lot of what Wikipedia would call 'Peacock' terms that just promote its subject without saying why.

Having a leader in the Green Party (of E&W) is a big thing for the party. Translating the local election vote into General Election votes meaning an MP would be a big thing for the party and having a first Green MP in Westminster a significant moment in UK politics.

Hearing from a party member how fabby the leader and party isn't. It's just straight party political promotion.

Tom,

The scale of the problems that advocates of the anti-nuclear agenda now face is well brought out in an article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta by the noted Russian foreign affairs intellectual Sergei Karaganov.

In Karaganov's view, it is likely that Russia has no option but to accept that it now involved in a new, largely-Western initiated, Cold War.

And like General Mahmoud Gareev, whose views I discussed in my comments on the earlier thread, Karaganov has come round to the belief that Russia has no option but to rely heavily on nuclear weapons.

This last comment is absolutely correct.  For Karaganov was one of the exponents of the so-called 'new thinking' of the Gorbachev era.  One of the central impulses behind this was fear of nuclear war, and one of its central tenets the need for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

Another central strand in the 'new thinking' was the adoption of the 'common security' agenda of the Palme Commission.  What was not widely grasped in the West at the time was that was underpinned by the belief that in large measure the security problems of the Soviet Union were self-created.  In turn, this was bound up with the widespread disillusionment with communism among sections of the Soviet elite.

A corollary of this was the expectation that the security concerns of a non-communist Russia which 'appeased' the Western powers would be respected.

Another fascinating element of Karaganov's article is it articulates a now widespread sense in Russia that this view was hopelessly naive, and based upon fundamentally flawed readings of the Cold War.

Implicit in this change of view, of course, is the collapse of the enormous moral authority which the West enjoyed in Russia at the end of the Cold War.

An irony in all this is that at the time when Gorbachev embraced the agenda for the abolition of nuclear weapons, it was crystal clear that changes in weaponry produced by developments in information technology were in the process of giving the United States an uncontestable superiority in conventional weaponry.

To have successfully converted sceptics like General Gareev and Sergei Karaganov to the virtues of nuclear 'deterrence', in a situation where these were particularly likely to be attractive to actual or potential enemies of the United States, could perhaps be seen as shooting oneself in the foot on a rather spectacular scale.

And of course it means that the possibility of creating a global consensus behind the need for the abolition of nuclear weapons has now faded practically to insignificance, for the forseeable future. 

Castro .......

Your "Letters to the press are far more influential " ......

Only if they are published!

Your "no nation would willingly forfeit their independence" ......

Wales is not, unless I have missed the gulag as driving past, a subjugated people.

Your "why should they decline the offer of independence?" ......

Generous of you, but I decline your offer of Independence because I do not see anything other than family when I look around our green and pleasant land, without rose tinted spectacles.  A minority in Wales would disenfranchise the majority in the pursuit of a political vision of a Socialist State, and if you decline to believe look at Ordo's blog, grass root support of Separatist Plaid Cymru in action, these people expect "Milk and Honey", rarely I would guess have they read "Animal Farm".

These online debates are quite useless. Letters to the press are far more influential but unfortunately most Welsh people read London based papers which give next to no Welsh news or opinions.
So we have to judge Welsh politics on Welsh politicians and political parties as we perceive them.
As with the SNP in Scotland Plaid Cymru is on the high ground while the Unionists are struggling to retain the fag end of a lost empire.
Nothing remains the same for ever - Ireland will soon be united, Scotland will be independent and Wales will follow shortly after. I cannot for the life of me see why this should be a problem - no nation would willingly forfeit their independence so why should they decline the offer of independence?

I'd be tempted to vote Green next time round were it not for your policy of elected English regions: effectively, the hated model of splitting England up into a number of meaningless EU-K regions. You seem also to make little acknowledgement of the impact of devolution, and how different solutions may be necessary for each of the UK nations: the 'nation', for you, appears to be the UK; and you are vague about the geographical applicability of key devolved policy areas, such as education and health. You talk of your policies in these domains as if they were Britain-wide, which they can't be: especially ironic as you are the Green Party of England and Wales, and ought to be more up front about the differences in governance and policy, in practice, for those two countries.

A reply to Ken Waldron .....

Salmon is creating a crisis for his and the SNP benefit at the expense of Brown.  I am no supporter of Brown, likewise I am no supporter of Separatism, from any quarter, I see greater benefits in the Union.

I also see smoke and mirrors used skillfully by the likes of Salmon, to project a country (Scotland) oppressed by Westminster, when historically the oppression has been at the hands of its own nobility, whether landed gentry or Industrialists.  What is generally omitted from SNP's scurrilous propaganda are the benefits accrued by the general population over many decades of cooperation in Westminster for the benefit of all, labour laws that offer protection to the young for example. 

I hope that you do stay in the Union, it will annoy me not at all, what annoys me are the likes of Salmon gaining parochial political points at the expense of the whole, points gained from information presented as fact, disingenuous.

That would be the same Lib Dems who want a 4p cut in income tax, at the same time: ' ...to be offset by a new local income tax ( add on your 6p) that would replace council taxation '

which is... um a 2p rise?

So the SNP are trying to create 'crisis' with a 3p rise, because you think its far too low, but the Lib Dems are somehow the voice of sanity with... a 2p one?

As to the rest of your post, why don't people like you stop pontificating about what Scotland 'should do'. All that "decide- once-and-for-all-ary " makes me want to stay in the Union just to annoy the likes of you.

That's a scathing generalisation there in point one Dougthedug. I for one, and I know I'm not alone, was an unhappy Scottish Liberal Democrat last May when the leadership adamantly refused to even contemplate talks over the issue of how arbitrary they seemed to view the democratic voice of the people of Scotland.

If the leadership thought that Scotland would be best served as part of the UK they should realise that we have the skills, gumption and arguments to win the hearts and minds if the people.

As for your summary of Steel clearly you rule out Calman at your peril. If even the PM is talking up far reaching reforms and greater autonomy coming out of it as a result it surely will be a great move to Scotland and may well nullify some of the sting from the Nats bid for independence.

It was calculated by the Liberal Democrat's several years ago that to replace Council tax would require a LIT of approximately 6 pence in the pound across the United Kingdom.

Salmon and his colleges have set the LIT at 3 pence in the pound, what is the motive setting it so low, it must be to create a crisis, the only answer to the crisis is to cut the Scots free, December the 31st this year. It's what Salmon wants, make them the offer, give them a simple referendum, "in" or "out" of the Union, have the referendum on the last day of October.  It is time to ask the Scots to "Put Up or Shut Up", they have more than a fair share of the pot, it's time to consider the whole of the British Nation, not just the Scottish Nationalist Elite.

No bluffs, if they want it, cut them free, ask them if they would like Gordon "wimp" Brown while they are about it.

As I mentioned in my submission to the Calman Commission,
there is a problem for Gordon Brown in making the Scottish Parliament
more financially accountable. Theoretically, if Scotland funds its own
education system directly through taxes raised in Scotland, then the
taxes spent on education in England are minus any Scottish
contribution. Why, therefore, should a Scottish prime minister, or
indeed any MP from Scotland, have any say whatsoever in how those taxes
are spent?  It is a widening of the democratic deficit.

Obviously this is a matter of degrees because I expect that Westminster will want to partly fund the devolved portfolio, just to keep its hand in - but even so.

The CEP also submitted to the Calman Commission.  The fact that English people in England are permitted (and encouraged) to sumit makes a mockery of Jim Wallace's signature to the Scottish Claim of Right.

Dougthedug that is one heck of a sweeping generalisation there with point one. I, for one, was not a happy Lib Dem when we refused to enter talks solely on what appeared to be how arbirarily we take democracy.

If the party truly believes that the best way forward for Scotland is as part of the United Kingdom we have the argument, gumption and skills to put that message across as an when it comes to it. At the same time as across Scotland Lib Dems and Nationalists were working together the Holyrood scenario looked bad but souded and tasted worse.

As for you summing up of Steel there are advances for Scotland that were highlighted under the remit of that commission and closer study into the implications was required. I know it may not be seismic but having worked in a NI Government Department and seen how public commissions on things like the economy move forward I was actually impressed just how wide ranging and advanced the final outlook was.

It's not all good news.

Plaid Cymru Welsh Assembly Member Helen Mary Jones is quoted today in  Walesonline as ......

"Despite the comments of David Davies, having spoken to Nick Bourne on many occasions I expect him to ensure that the Conservative Party officially supports a Yes vote in a referendum by 2011".

Some debate, a little debate, no debate.

Jones goes further ........

"I hope and expect the Conservative report from Wyn Roberts to lead to official support for the Yes campaign from David Cameron and Cheryl Gillan."

This from the far left wing of Plaid Cymru.

The battle has yet to begin and we seem to have strange bedfellows aligned under the quilt.

Hendre, its a start, and good news for the moderate majority.

Ghandi said you cannot shake hands with a clenched fist, there are not many open hands in the camp of seperatist Plaid Cymru.

We have been overtaken by events ... see today's Western Mail.

"A WELSH Conservative MP has caused a political storm by announcing he plans to launch a cross-party campaign for a No vote in the promised referendum on full lawmaking powers for the National Assembly.

Monmouth MP David Davies, who was an AM for eight years, said giving the Assembly extra powers would begin a slippery slope to independence and “Soviet-style poverty”.

A respectful reply to Hendre .........

"You seem to imply, Stonemason, that a pro-unionist view must entail opposition to further powers for the Assembly." .......

......  I can concede my error, it was a concern that without an anti-Plaid position, a pro-Unionist position might be lost, would Plaid be able to strengthen its anti-Unionist stance and present it as a Welsh preference through the convention.

“There are dissenting voices in both Labour and Conservatives ranks.  I’m not aware that the conservatives have an official position on the matter as yet." ..........

.......... It's what I am reading, there might be dissenting voices,  but I do not hear them, if you know who they are ask them to shout.  No disrespect intended.

"The Convention's remit is to stimulate debate. If it recommends
proceeding with a referendum on full law-making powers then you will
see your democracy in action". ..........

.......... without, for want of a better expression, a loyal opposition, I just cannot see debate in the offing.

I need to add, how many voters know and understand what "the current powers available to the National Assembly are", without adding "enough?" to the end of the sentence.

I am afraid that having read all the available downloadable Plaid Cymru policy documents, I fear for the future, and I wonder whether the convention have been devised as a mechanism to give Plaid Cymru a referendum to promote "devolution", as payment for the current "One Wales - Coalition agreement between Plaid and Labour".

I commend to you the following taken from page 6 of the agreement document ........

"There will be a joint commitment to use the Government of Wales Act 2006 provisions to the full under Part III and to proceed to a successful outcome of a referendum for full law-making powers under Part IV as soon as practicable, at or before the end of the Assembly term."

found at download doc.

Hendre, I would be happy to be wrong, but I smell a rat.

You seem to imply, Stonemason, that a pro-unionist view must entail opposition to further powers for the Assembly.

“all parties are currently supporting the proposition …”

There are dissenting voices in both Labour and Conservatives ranks. I’m not aware that the Conservatives have an official position on the matter as yet.

The Convention's remit is to stimulate debate. If it recommends proceeding with a referendum on full law-making powers then you will see your democracy in action.

Sir Emyr Jones Parry has another massive problem .....

"Who in the Welsh Assembly will take a pro-Unionist position?"  Without a very public opposition to the extension of powers the process becomes a farce.

It is important to remember the Welsh Assembly has a collective incentive to increase their powers (all parties are currently supporting the proposition), it is rare for a child to refuse a sweet.

Who will police the convention during its data collection, and who will have the resources and muscle to challenge its findings and any recommendation it makes?

At best the All Wales Convention is a flawed exercise, it should be in the form of a referendum supervised by the "Electoral Commission".

It is not democracy in action.