The wrong decision on NATO

I'm afraid  I cant agree with Syniadau over the SNP conference decision that a Independent Scotland would remain a member of  NATO

As Syniadau points out the motion passed as amended read.....

"On independence, Scotland will inherit its treaty obligations with NATO. An SNP government will maintain NATO membership subject to an agreement that Scotland will not host nuclear weapons and NATO takes all possible steps to bring about nuclear disarmament as required by the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty of which all its members are signatories, and further that NATO continues to respect the right of members to only take part in UN-sanctioned operations."

So why not just contribute to the UN Peace Keeping force as Ireland do?

These days most European countries may members of NATO but that does not mean its the right Organisation to join.


And there  are many others (either full members or associates ) throughout the World .Not all  what you might call Democracies

	NATO members		Membership Action Plan		Individual Partnership Action Plan		Partnership for Peace		Mediterranean Dialogue		Istanbul Cooperation Initiative		Global Partners

So the question is.  Who are the Enemy?

Which if any of the Non NATO  members would be a threat to Scotland?

SNP MP  Angus Robertson  argued,r, that withdrawing from NATO would leave the North Sea open to potential attack.

"I asked what the impact would be of Scotland not being in NATO. Everything that is around Scotland turns into a black hole where we have no idea what's going on, and that worries our neighbours intensely," explained Robertson.

Mr Robertson, along with fellow MP Angus MacNeil, told members that NATO is regarded as the "keystone defence organisation" by Denmark, Norway, Iceland and the UK.

Who the hell is threatening Denmark and Norway and Why aren't Sweden and Finland members who may have more to worry about if its Russia?

It seems to me that the SNP may be attempting to gain tacit approval for Independence from NATO members or at least limit hostility.

But they have taken the wrong step they could have maintained that an Independent Scotland could be pat of the non aligned nations of the UN and not part of an organisations dominated by the USA and it immediate allies.

It is the wrong decision taken to limit the Media attacks on a "Defenceless Scotland" . But it will mean Scotland will be tied to an organisation increasingly seen as an arm of Western Imperialism and in some quarters little more than a satellite of a US Empire.

I hope Plaid will not follow suit.

Are MP's any different from the Boswells?

The Boswell family. Not too different from our Westminster MPs

Those of you who remember Bread, a British television sitcom, written by Carla Lane, produced by the BBC and screened on BBC1 from 1 May 1986 to 3 November 1991. may record that family in the series the Boswells had an interesting  means of claiming housing benefit .

The Family lived in the house that was owned by Grandad  who lived Next door in a house owned by them.

So they would raise each others rent and claim it back from the DHSS.

I doubt if this would really have been allowed but the indication was  given that it was not illegal.

Whilst the latest revelation from the Telegraph  make an interesting comparison....

Members of the House of Commons, including former ministers, are claiming expenses of up to £20,000 a year each for rent as well as receiving rent from properties that were often purchased and refurbished with taxpayer assistance.The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority confirmed that at least eight MPs are either letting properties to, or renting from, another MP, a loophole in the rules that effectively allows them to continue building up property nest-eggs at taxpayers’ expense.Research by this newspaper using official parliamentary records shows that the 27 MPs who are renting London homes while claiming rental income for other flats include Liam Fox, the former defence secretary, Chris Bryant, the shadow immigration minister, and former defence ministers Peter Luff and Nick Harvey, as well as David Amess, a Tory MP.While they have done nothing wrong under parliamentary rules, the disclosures will prompt questions about how taxpayers’ money is being used and lead to greater demands for transparency from MPs about their expenses.

Daily Telegraph 18 October 2012 

Whilst there seems that the MPs  may not be "Doing a Boswell" it does seem that they are exploiting a loophole in the same fashion that Tax Avoiders do

On Thursday, The Daily Telegraph disclosed that the Speaker of the House of Commons had attempted to prevent the new expenses regulator from disclosing the identities of MPs’ landlords, which would have allowed the public to work out which MPs were renting their homes to each other. John Bercow claimed in a letter to the watchdog that the release of the information would jeopardise security.

It would be a pretty poor activist who couldn't find a MPs address and this looks a pathetic excuse, and a smokescreen in an attempt to cover up another expenses scandal.

For Rhondda Labour MP Chris Bryant, it may be he has relinquished the Moral High Ground he justifiably gained during the "Hacking Scandal.".

I don't think this story is over yet and while these MPs may have doing illegal they are not in a position to criticise others for exploiting loopholes in the system and one wonders how many other legal loopholes are being misused by those in power.

Charles Windsor interferes in government.

The row over the Guardian's attempt to get information under the Freedom of Information Act of confidential letters written by Prince Charles to ministers.Despite a previous court order in the Papers favour Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, issued a veto that puts an absolute block on the publication of 27 letters between the prince and ministers over a seven-month period. Grieve said the letters contained the "particularly frank" and "most deeply held personal views and beliefs" of the prince.

In a statement on Tuesday justifying his use of the veto, Grieve said:

"Much of the correspondence does indeed reflect the Prince of Wales's most deeply held personal views and beliefs. The letters in this case are in many cases particularly frank.
"They also contain remarks about public affairs which would in my view, if revealed, have had a material effect upon the willingness of the government to engage in correspondence with the Prince of Wales, and would potentially have undermined his position of political neutrality."
Grieve continued: "In summary, my decision is based on my view that the correspondence was undertaken as part of the Prince of Wales's preparation for becoming king. The Prince of Wales engaged in this correspondence with ministers with the expectation that it would be confidential. Disclosure of the correspondence could damage the Prince of Wales's ability to perform his duties when he becomes king.
"It is a matter of the highest importance within our constitutional framework that the monarch is a politically neutral figure able to engage in confidence with the government of the day, whatever its political colour."

"Political Neutrality "  doesn't mean that you cannot have views  but in this case Charles Windsor wrote to Minister and it appears that he may have tried to influence policy .

So he has broken the Tacit contract that he doesn't try and interfere in  government and clearly these  letters show he had been trying to influence Ministers.

It is clearly rubbish for Grieve to claim that the correspondence was undertaken as part of the Prince of Wales's preparation for becoming king. He has advisors for this and is probably briefed regularly on al aspects of Government , But knowing what's the government is doing on and the (Head of State at least ) should know bis different from saying What the government should do

We particularly need to know if he has been lobbying on judgments s over the activities Dutchy of Cornwall Estates of  that provides Charles with a £17m-a-year private income should be made public.

Taxpayers give Charles and the rest of his family a lavish lifestyle on the understanding that they do not meddle in government. Political Neutrality is not Political Anonymity  and we need to know what Charles Windsor and the rest of his family have been up to, He is  already many more privileges than the rest of us it seems that he wishes to increase them

Awema. Did Labour turn a blind eye?

The Western Mule Reports that a damning report from the Wales Audit Office has strongly criticised the Welsh Government’s “often weak” financial oversight of the controversial ethnic minorities charity Awema.

A report by the Wales Audit Office has revealed the charity received £7.1m from the Welsh Government between July 2000 and December 2011.

The Mule also add  that the  Welsh Government is unlikely to recover much of the £545, 966 debt it says it is owed by the charity, which oversaw projects aimed at improving the employment prospects of people from ethnic minorities.

It is now in liquidation

The Mule continues ,,,,,

Earlier it was revealed how Awema was in turmoil, with allegations of financial irregularities and bullying and harassment against its chief executive Naz Malik. 

Mr Malik, who was subsequently sacked, admitted paying off a personal credit card debt of more than £9,000 with Awema money, but claimed it was an advance on his expenses.

Mr Malik was also found to have authorised significant pay rises to his daughter Tegwen, who was employed as Awema’s operations director. Her salary rose from £20,469 to £50,052 between January 2008 and August 2011.

A joint report by the Welsh Government’s Internal Audit Services and the Big Lottery Fund concluded that trustees of Awema, including Mr Malik, had shown “little regard to the recognised standards in public life”.

The new report from the Wales Audit Office (WAO) catalogues in detail the relationship between the Welsh Government and Awema over a decade.
It says that while the Government’s management and coordination of its grant funding to Awema had often been weak, no evidence had been found of inappropriate political influence in funding decisions.

Western Mail 18 October 2010

You can see the whole article here

Despite concerns about Awema the full extent of the problems there only truly came to life when Malik was accused of bullying and harassment  and the report shows that In 2006, the then Plaid Cymru AM Dr Dai Lloyd was given an inaccurate and incomplete response to a Written Assembly Question. Based on information given to her by the equalities unit, Jane Hutt, the Minister responsible for Equality, said the total amount of Welsh Government funding to Awema amounted to £792,245.

In fact, the charity had at that time received £1.7

How well informed are AMs let alone the rest of us on Third Party ventures, and  how they are audited?


There had been has been a worrying feeling amongst some observers that the charity had been treated favourably because Mr Malik was a member of the Labour Party and that this a part of a Welsh culture that sees Labour members having powerful positions in such third party sectors and whilst  I fully understand the vast majority are truly committed and honest it does not mean they are always the best people for these jobs and their Labour links prevent a thorough scrutiny by the Assembly Government to see that these bodies in receipt of funds are not only free of corruption but also run competently  

But I fear as Labour  retrieve the control of Local Authorities this will get worse.

Perhaps the the first thing the Assembly should do is to ensure that a deceleration of Interest by senior Members of Body  in receipt of Welsh Government funds should declare any membership of a Political Party or other organisation that has links to the Assembly

Parity with Scotland.

The agreement signed by Cameron and Salmond has all the hallmarks of a treaty between two Nations. Cameron has agreed d that the Scottish Government has the right to call and  conduct a referendum on Independence.

Plaid MPs should ask him in the fullness of time when a Welsh Government wants to call a referendum on even further powers will he grant them the dame rights?

It looks like a victory all round for Salmond  despite claims that they lost out on the third question issue.


Since the Scottish Independence referendum will not have a third Devo Max option which most of the political commentators claim was far the preferred option of those eligible to vote.It is the Unionist and not the SNP who have lost the argument.

Unless they formed  a united front on what the Scottish electorate can expect in the wake of  No vote in the election the Nationalist could well claim that if the Scots wanted more powers then Independence is the only option.Since they have no way  to determine what Unionist Party will win the next election or what goes in their manifesto and as we know from Nick Clegg pledges mean nothing.

Already the Lib Dems have broken rank and are talking about a Home Rule Plan allowing the Scottish Parliament to collect almost all income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and air passenger duty - but not VAT, alcohol or excise duties.

It also proposes the UK adopting a federal system, which would create a series of regional and national parliaments and assemblies across the United Kingdom, with a federal government retaining powers over foreign affairs, defence, currency, welfare and pensions.

I can't see either Labour or the Tories going along with this, and it will be interesting  if they can give the Scottish electorate Cast Iron Guarantees on what extra powers they would devolve to the Scottish parliament the whole Union case could collapse in disunity and mistrust.

Meanwhile Carwyn Jones has indicated at least some of Welsh Labour, believe that whatever happens in Scotland. Wales need to consider the implications. He said.

 “I would regret enormously any decision by the Scots to opt for independence.“However, as I have made clear, a major change in Scotland’s relationship with the rest of Britain – or its separation from the rest of the UK – would require a radical reconsideration of Wales’ constitutional relationship within a re-defined United Kingdom.

He continued...

That’s why, earlier this year, I called for the establishment of a Constitutional Convention to agree a new constitutional settlement for the UK which is fit for the 21st century. My vision of a new UK is a union which is politically diverse, looser, and combines several centres of democratic accountability.
“So, rather than simply allow events in Scotland to unfold, and to react passively to whatever happens when it happens, I believe that political and civil society across the UK should be talking now about what kind of UK we want to see. Whatever happens in 2014, the constitutional status quo is unsustainable.

Western Mail 16 October 2012

Plaid, must also consider their position when looking at what the Unionist Parties are offering Scotland, as an alternative to Independence, and compare it with what Wales have now  and the fact that  they will probably offer us nothing more .

Well the LibDems might.

They are also proposing the UK adopting a federal system, which would create a series of regional and national parliaments and assemblies across the United Kingdom, with a federal government retaining powers over foreign affairs, defence, currency, welfare and pensions. although they claim that..

 that different parts of the UK may wish to move at different speeds towards federalism, adding: "The move to home rule status for Scotland, in which it enjoys a federal relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom, is a first stage that can proceed ahead of the rest."

BBC 16th October 2012

Which in reality gives us no indication on what on offer for Wales but it doesn't look like it will be remotely on par on what they are offering Scotland.

Hard line Nationalist may argue that Plaid should only argue for Independence but if you have a clapped out old banger and want a powerful new car (ecological and fuel efficient of course) you may be happy to run a middle range car for a few years while you wait.

So Plaid whilst backing a Yes vote in Scotland and campaigning for Independence  could well use the Slogan

"Parity with Scotland whatever the Result"

Bethan Jenkins "The final curtain"?

It does not look good for Bethan Jenkins, after  the A Plaid Assembly member was arrested for drink-driving.

She  was arrested in Cardiff, in the early hours of Sunday morning and has been bailed by police. She has not been charged.

The South Wales West regional member, who has been suspended from her party's group in the assembly, said she was "profoundly sorry" for her actions. and said

This is something I deeply regret and I will fully accept the punishment I am given.
"In recent weeks I have been receiving help from a medical professional and a counsellor to deal with a recognised health problem.
"There is no excuse for this incident, but I am clear that I now need to address this issue as a matter of urgency. As such, I am receiving professional medical support for depression, something I am only beginning to come to terms with.
"I would like to thank the police for ensuring the safety of others and that of myself in the action they took, and I apologise profusely to them for adding to their already difficult workload."

BBC Wales 16 October 2012

Unfortunately for Bethan this as come after a number of unfavourable headlines and it and (assuming she is charged and found guilty) will make it very difficult for her gain the number one spot when Plaid  nominate the regional candidates for South West Wales for the next Assembly Elections,

I don't drive but I'm honest enough to admit if I did then I could likely misjudge my alcohol levels and be caught over the limit . So I hope we are not going to have some self righteous condemnations from Bethan's opponents here . Though it may depend on how over the limit she may be.

Nevertheless driving under the influence of alcohol is a serious offence and Politicians who make the laws are expected to obey them.

It is will if she is convicted for Bethan somehow  to carry on as Assembly Member if convicted and it will be difficult for Plaid who have acted rather to quickly in suspending her as Alan Davies states in his blog to readmit her,

"But the last thing she needs right now is to be suspended by her party at a time when she really needs help and support. Whatever happened to the concept of “Mewn Undeb mae Nerth”."

 Alas it looks like for now Bethan's political career may be coming to a close at least in the Assembly. I for one will be sorry to see it.We need voices to speak out against the norm and not play the safe wish washy politics we see from most of those in the Assembly.

One further thing although the inclusion on the story merited being reported other Text news pages of the BBC . Why do our AM only get reported on the Politics page when there's a controversy?

Why are FoI's so expensive?

The BBC, have reported that Local authorities say they are struggling with the number of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests which have more than doubled since 2005.

They report that ......

"The warning comes from the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) which says councils cannot afford to spend lots of money on "unnecessary" queries.
The number has risen from 3,530 in 2005 to 9,304 last year, according to figures obtained by BBC Wales.
Requests can be made to any publicly funded body in the UK.
They are frequently used by journalists, businesses and politicians to obtain information which is not already publicly available, although any member of the public can make a request".

 BBC Radio Wales 14 October 2012

They continue...... 

 "Steve Thomas, chief executive of the WLGA, said with cuts in public expenditure councils could not afford to spend huge amounts of money on "unnecessary" FoIs.
"Every pound and every shilling is required at the moment to push into frontline services," he said.
"I'm afraid that FoIs, particularly in the way they're coming in and the weight they're coming in, are in some areas detracting from frontline services."
Merthyr council received the most requests per head of the population in Wales.
Officers say they used to get around 10 per month but the number has risen to around 60 in recent years.
They could have spent as much as £160,000 last year answering the queries - equivalent to the cost of around seven newly qualified teachers".

BBC Radio Wales 14 October 2012

Its always Qualified Teachers and not new perks like  expensive motors for the council leaders that are claimed to be lost.

May be I should send in a request asking ."Why FOI are so expensive Under the Freedom of Information Act?" According to the BBC, each request should not cost more than £600 for central government to answer and should be less than £450 for other public authorities.A study by University College London estimated the average cost of an FoI request to be £293.

Can it be that FOI cost are estimated on the same league as your Bank who charge us £20 for a letter saying we are overdrawn claiming administration cost for 5 minutes work.

Could it be that Councils are not recording Data Properly. In the IT age after all it should be not difficult to retrive probably stored data from the Councils computer storage.

But Councils can also help themselves by allowing to see more information on their websites instead of hiding it away . Though this may have to be independently monitored to ensure they don't present figures on a similar line to the local "Pravda on the Rates".

I suspect this a case of our Councils believing the public should not know to much about our their local authority is run and are using this simply as an excuse to limit our queries.