National Assembly stands up for safe standing

They took their bloody time getting to it – this was originally raised as far back as February 2013 (Could safe standing be coming to Wales?) - but last Wednesday, the National Assembly debated a  cross-party motion on "safe standing" at football stadiums.

The motion :

• Noted the "overwhelming appetite" amongst supporters to re-introduce terracing.
• Called upon the Welsh Government to work with sports bodies to promote safe standing areas at football grounds.
• Called upon the UK Government to consider a safe standing pilot in Wales.

The debate followed a visit of the Football Supporters Federation (FSF) Safe Standing Roadshow to the Senedd back in June, where AMs were able to see a demonstration model in order to properly inform their views.

What is "safe standing"?

AMs were recently able to see close-up how "safe standing" works.
(Pic : Football Supporters Federation)

I went over this last time around, but it's worth briefly covering again.

Terracing was phased out within top-flight EnglishandWelsh football grounds following the 1989 Hillsborough Disaster and subsequent Taylor Report. Most terraced areas were either rebuilt or, as many clubs have done, entire grounds were replaced with all-seater stadiums – the Liberty Stadium replacing The Vetch, for example.

Because standing is popular, yet forbidden, "safe standing" is seen as a way to address common concerns relating to terracing like overcrowding and crushing, allowing a reintroduction within modern stadiums. It usually takes the form of "rail seats", where rows of seats are connected to waist-high rails then folded away during games to create two rows of terracing (as shown in the photo above).

It would make surges impossible because every standing supporter would be near a rail and every two rows of spectators would be divided. This would also enable the authorities to better control numbers coming and going, and whenever the stadium needs to be converted to an all-seater format (i.e. for European competitions or concerts), the seats are simply unlocked.

The Debate (link)

The all-seater Liberty Stadium hosts both football and rugby, but it's argued that
there's a contradiction in that top flight football is explicity banned from using terracing.
(Pic : Daily Mirror)

Ann Jones AM (Lab, Vale of Clwyd), started by highlighting how stadiums have changed down the years.  Ann said it was contradictory that terracing is banned at top-flight football grounds, yet remains at grounds that host other sports - like St Helen's new stadium, Langtree Park (image), which has terracing for 8,000 fans; or closer to home, Cardiff Arms Park and Parc y Scarlets. She said, "football fans want, and deserve, a choice when it comes to sitting or standing", with 92% of fans surveyed (not explained further) supporting the reintroduction of terracing, with stewards at football games facing, "a thankless task....of trying to persuade their club’s most passionate supporters to sit down". Ann believed the Football Association of Wales (FAW) had an opportunity, "to show the fans....that there is a real chance to pioneer a trial period of safe standing within the Welsh Premier League."

Suzy Davies AM (Con, South Wales West) said she was sceptical due to the impact of the Hillsborough disaster and didn't want to "support anything that would jeopardise football grounds becoming welcoming places for children, women, people with particular vulnerabilities or disabilities." Suzy's also – in the proper Wenglish – "only a dwt", raising an overlooked issue in this debate of indirect discrimination against short adults.

After seeing the roadshow demonstration, Suzy changed her mind, as it was "completely different from the death-trap terraces that I remember", while measures can be put in place for disabled supporters. She didn't support a "rush to safe standing", but concluded by saying that it should be allowed as part of planned stadium refurbishments.

Clubs like Cardiff City have had serious problems with hooliganism, and both Mike Hedges AM
and Suzy Davies AM argued that all-seater stadiums have diversified football crowds.
(Pic : news.yahoo.com)

Mike Hedges AM (Lab, Swansea East) played devil's advocate and was the only AM who spoke out against safe standing. He acknowledged that standing at football games was popular, saying it would "increase the capacity of football grounds without the need for any additional building work". However, he said safe standing was an "oxymoron", citing "the surge; the crush; overcrowding; hooliganism; and the charge" and going into detail as to the causes of these, reminising about crowd problems at an FA Cup tie between Swansea Town and Arsenal in 1968.

Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Davies AM (Con, South Wales Central) – one of the more vocal supporters of safe standing - pointed out that if Mike had been to the FSF demonstration he would realise his views were 30 years out of date.

Mike countered by saying that all-seater stands had provided a more mixed set of spectators and improved crowd management, concluding that reintroducing terracing would be "a serious and retrograde step".

Big German clubs like Borussia Dortmund make routine use of safe standing,
wheeling out seats when they compete in European competitions.
(Pic : schwatzgelb.de)

Plaid Cymru's sport spokesperson, Bethan Jenkins AM (Plaid, South Wales West), cited safe standing's widespread use in the German Bundesliga, using the example of (it's pronounced "Bor-oo-see-ya", Bethan) Borussia Dortmund's Signal Iduna Park, which has a terraced capacity of ~27,000. She noted that these standing areas can be quickly converted to seated areas to meet UEFA competition requirements too.

Bethan said clubs like Dortmund use CCTV and ticketing information to control crowds and pick out trouble-makers, and even if terracing has a "perceived correlation with hooliganism....improvement in technology, policing tactics and crowd behaviour need to be taken into account."

Bethan also raised the long-held belief amongst supporters that safe standing could lead to cheaper tickets as standing areas accommodate more fans. She said another possible benefit would be allowing, "those people who know that they will become more passionate than other people....to be in that area together" (aka "singing sections" and Ultras). She called for a "fact-based public debate" and "a realisation that time has moved on".

Aled Roberts AM (Lib Dem, North Wales) made the grave mistake of bringing up Mickey Thomas's 1992 fluke. That's unparliamentary behaviour if ever I saw it. Despite his own experiences of terrace troubles during a match between Wrexham and Crystal Palace in the 1970s, he said safe standing "is shown to work" and is being introduced to the Polish Ekstraklasa despite serious hooliganism problems there. Aled said (I don't know if it's true or not) the UK Government had blocked legislation on this - and it's a difference within the Coalition - calling on Welsh Conservatives to lobby Whitehall Tories to change their mind.

In his response, Culture Minister John Griffiths (Lab, Newport East) said that as a Newport County supporter he often stands himself, but "we have seen major improvements to spectator safety and comfort as a consequence of....legislation (Football Supporters Act 1989) being introduced" emphasising the lack of clarity on the issue despite safe standing being popular with supporters.

He said it isn't a "straightforward matter to resolve" but "safety is paramount". All in all John remained neutral, believing the "matter of a pilot of safe standing in Wales is for clubs, owners and supporters to consider."

If safe standing were permitted, would a redeveloped White Hart Lane
be the first ground equipped with it?
(Pic : premierleague.com)

Andrew Davies spoke well and at length on all the issues covered. He paid tribute to his researcher Vincent Bailey, who lives in hope that - as Spurs look on jealously from under the shadow cast by the Emirates Stadium - a redeveloped White Hart Lane could have safe standing areas.

It's very rare to hear The Arsenal mentioned in the Senedd chamber (three times during the debate in fact), and I can say that all Arsenal supporters have fond memories of White Hart Lane too. 71, 2004.

Mike Hedges then raised a valid question; whether any police forces, safety officers or licencing authorities support safe standing? Andrew said he hadn't "heard of any that have objected to it". He added that there was a strong case to hold a trial specifically in Wales because the Liberty Stadium and Cardiff City Stadium have medium-sized capacities, and it would therefore be easier to trial it here than a larger ground like Old Trafford.

Andrew wound up the debate by saying, "We see it (terracing) at rugby, we see it at horse racing tracks where fans are allowed to stand and enjoy their sport, and I fail to see why football fans should be treated differently."

The motion was approved by 26 votes to 1 with 20 abstentions (including, bizarrely, Mike Hedges).

The Issues Raised

Even the most well-supported Welsh Premier League clubs - like Rhyl and Bangor City - don't
attract the sorts of crowds necessary to determine if safe standing really would be safe.
(Pic : lilywhites.northwalesblogs.co.uk)

• Trialling safe standing in the Welsh Premier League – No offense to Ann Jones and her beloved Rhyl FC, but crowds in the Welsh Premier League are often measured in the hundreds, not tens of thousands. The only crush threat is the queue to the burger van. It wouldn't be a fair test. This would have to be trialled at a professional club in the higher tiers of the English pyramid – ultimately that means Cardiff or Swansea.
• Short adults and disabilities - Being only 5ft7 myself I know all too well what it's like to get stuck behind a human barn door at a football match, and it's not as if they make stilettos in my size. The logical solution to this would be to make terraces steeper so everyone – even the vertically disadvantaged – can see over the row in front. But that might be too expensive and cause safety concerns. It shouldn't affect disabled people as most clubs have designated disabled areas or wheelchair spaces which offer a clear view of the pitch. Supporters would still have a choice to remain in a seated area too.
• Policing & Crowd Control – I don't think Mike Hedges' arguments on this hold much water, except his question on whether police would back a return of terracing. I'd bet they wouldn't, and if terracing were reintroduced, police forces might consider charging clubs more to police games, deploying extra resources which would be better used elsewhere.
• Safety Certificates & Licensing - Some grounds - especially in built-up areas, like Arsenal's Emirates Stadium - have strict controls on the number of spectators allowed in due to the geography around the stadium or issues like transport. Even if a safe standing area held more spectators, the total number of supporters in the stadium could still be capped by safety certificates, making it a wasted effort if the goal of safe standing is to increase crowds. At the very least clubs that install large banks of safe standing would have to reapply for safety certificates.
• Ticket Prices & Costs – As I said last time, I don't think it's a given that ticket prices would automatically come down. Maybe smaller clubs would charge less to get people through the gates, but top-tier clubs might see it as an "experience" to sell to fans and the laws of supply and demand come into effect. Low ticket prices at German clubs are as much a result of how those clubs are owned (many are supporter-owned, and ownership by a single individual is banned) not just through the use of safe standing areas.

So, in the end, the National Assembly formally backed the promotion of safe standing and a pilot in Wales - though neither Welsh or British governments are bound by it. Whether a pilot goes ahead or not will likely come down to lobbying by the Culture Minister (who seems to want to wait for a cue from clubs) or a similar call in Westminster. I'm sure the campaign to bring back safe standing will see this support as useful too.

All of the speakers made valid and interesting points – for and against – demonstrating an ability to disagree with each other without resorting to the hyperbole and answer dodging that plagues other Assembly sessions. I'm a fan of these topical member's debates and, in my opinion, they should be held more often and are of more use than the usual Wednesday afternoon opposition debates.

Neither the Welsh Government or National Assembly have had the best of times over the last fortnight. This debate showed - even if the legislative session draws to a close with a dark cloud hanging over it – that maybe, just maybe, there's hope yet.

Read More

Wales : The Next Generation

"Make it so".

What could be one of the most significant pieces of legislation this Assembly term was introduced earlier this week by Communities & Tackling Poverty Minister Jeff Cuthbert (Lab, Caerphilly) to "great fanfare" : the Well-being of Future Generations Bill.

When I try to summarise a new law I usually read the text of the Bill (pdf) and then use the explanatory memorandum (pdf) to either confirm my own understanding of what's written or clear things up.

This was a challenge. I was pinned down by jargon. Charlie tossed a few buzzword grenades and through the dense vegetation of management speak all I could hear were voices calling out, as English was abused with all the enthusiasm of a 1970s national treasure. I developed the thousand yard stare of legislative shell shock.

That's the sort of living hell I have to put myself through to bring you blogs like this. You don't know, man! You weren't there!

I guess what I'm trying to say is this is a very dense – dare I say it – slightly bizarre law. Having said that, the National Assembly's Members Research Service have done a good job of summarising the underlying principles of the Bill over at their In Brief blog.

The Goals of the Future Generations Bill

(Pic : xkcd.com)

I'm not fibbing when I say that if you wanted to sum up the Bill in one sentence it would be that it's "trying to improve everything by gently predicting and guiding future events". You name it, the Bill sets goals to improve it. All this is under the umbrella of "sustainable development" – something the Welsh Government and National Assembly are obliged to factor into their decisions by statute.

I suppose the clearest definition of "sustainable development" would be actions that would meet current human needs (like economic development, housing, transport) without putting pressure on the natural environment, and - importantly - being able to maintain that balance indefinitely.

The Bill was joined by a high-profile national conversation - launched by Michael Sheen back in February - called "The Wales We Want", which intends to outline what the people of Wales, of all ages, want the country to be like in 2050. An interim report (pdf) was published alongside the launch of the Bill.

The findings highlighted that the biggest single concerns were : climate change (26% of respondents), skills & education (16%), natural environment (14%) employment (13%) and governance (7%).

Here's a word cloud of the responses from postcard submissions :

(Pic : The Wales We Want interim report - click to enlarge)

Notice that "sustainability/sustainable" and "social justice" are tucked away. It's worth pondering whether "sustainability" is the Wales they (government and associated groups) want, not the Wales we (the public) want.

"Sustainable" is the single most annoying buzzword in Cardiff Bay. It's used so often, you would think AMs were piously green woodland creatures that make absolutely no impact on the planet in action or thought.

If you take statements and Senedd debates at face value, everything our AMs propose or support is "sustainable"; whether that's building a race track on an upland moor with no races, building houses in the middle of nowhere, prioritising a whacking great big motorway across the Gwent Levels over public transport or supporting a nuclear power station Wales doesn't even need - at present or in the future.

Don't get me wrong, everyone behind this – including the Welsh Government – has gone into it with the best possible intentions, but it's built on soft foundations. We never seem to get aggressive actions, only aggressive talk in an attempt to make "sustainability/sustainable development" mean whatever decision-makers and opinion-formers want it to mean.

I don't see that changing, and here's why....

What the Future Generations Bill proposes

There are six very important long-term goals the Bill aims to focus attentions on
- but the rest of it is all too familiar.
(Pic : The Wales We Want)

The broad aim of the Act will be to place a duty on all public bodies in Wales (Welsh Government, local health boards, local councils, national parks, fire and rescue services, directly funded government bodies like National Museums Wales etc.) to improve the well-being of the population by following the "sustainable development" principle : meet today's needs without compromising the needs of, and resources available to, future generations.

Well-being Goals

The Bill sets out six core well-being goals it expects every public body in Wales to pursue.

1. A prosperous Wales – A low carbon, innovative economy that creates jobs, wealth and provides skills to the workforce.
2. A resilient Wales – Healthy ecosystems that support social, economic and ecological resilience and can adapt to change.
3. A healthier Wales – A society where physical and mental well-being is maximised and behaviours that improve future health are understood.
4. A more equal Wales – A society that enables people to fulfil their potential regardless of background.
5. A Wales of cohesive communities – Attractive, safe and well-connected communities.
6. A Wales of vibrant culture and a thriving Welsh language – A society that promotes, protects and encourages participation in culture, sport, heritage and the Welsh language.

• These goals may be added to, removed or amended by the Welsh Government (after consultation and Assembly approval).
• Public bodies and Welsh Ministers must publish their own objectives to achieve these well-being goals in accordance with the sustainable development principle.
• The Welsh Government must publish indicators to measure progress towards achieving these goals and lay a copy in front of the the National Assembly. They'll also have to publish an annual report on their progress.
• Within 12 months of every Welsh General Election, the Welsh Government will need to publish a "Future Trends Report" that outlines future trends in the economic, social and environmental well-being of Wales – including relevant statistics where appropriate.

Future Generations Commissioner

The Bill :

• Establishes a Sustainability/Future Generations Commissioner (which already exists but as a non-statutory position).
• Outlines the broad role of the Commissioner as :
• Promoting the "sustainable development principle" by safeguarding the needs of future generations.
• Encouraging public bodies to take the long-term impact of their decisions into consideration.
• Monitoring how public bodies are meeting their well-being objectives.
• Encouraging best practice amongst public bodies and promote awareness of sustainable development.
• Undertaking research or studies into sustainable development.
• Making recommendations to Welsh Ministers and public bodies on sustainable development goals. Those bodies will have a duty to follow any recommendations from the Commissioner unless they have good reason not to, or they come up with a better alternative.
• Places a duty on the Commissioner to publish a Future Generations report outlining what actions public bodies can take to meet their well-being objectives, after consultation with public bodies, the advisory panel (below), trade unions, businesses and anyone else the Commissioner deems appropriate.
• Establishes an Advisory Panel made up of other Commissioners (Chlidren's, Older People's), chief officers (i.e Chief Medical Officer) the chair of Natural Resources Wales and other members appointed by the Welsh Government.
• Bars elected representatives or peers from being appointed as Commissioner.

Public Service Boards

The Bill :

• Establishes Public Service Boards in each local authority area (post-merger?) made up of the local council, local health board, fire and rescue authorities and Natural Resources Wales.
• Places a duty on these new boards to invite other key participants, like Welsh Ministers, chief constables, Police & Crime Commissioners and bodies representing voluntary organisations ("Third Sector"). Other partners include community councils, Community Health Councils and Assembly-sponsored bodies (i.e Sport Wales).
• Grants powers to the hosting local authority's overview and scrutiny committee to review and scrutinise the public service board's functions and governance, and also grants them the power to report failings to the Welsh Government.
• Grants powers to Welsh Ministers to merge public service boards or direct them to collaborate if it would be beneficial.

The functions of the Public Service Boards are :

• To improve the economic, social and ecological well-being of their local area in accordance with the sustainable development principle.
• To publish an assessment of the well-being of their local area within one year of establishment.
• To develop local well-being plans to meet any decided local well-being aims in accordance with the sustainable development principle.
• To fully include community councils which have an expenditure of over £200,000 per year, which will – in turn – have to play a role in meeting the well-being aims set by the public service boards at a community level.

How much will the Future Generations Act cost?

The explanatory memorandum provided a very detailed breakdown of the potential costs based on various policy options. I'm only basing this off the Welsh Government's preferred option in each case.

The costs of the new levels of reporting, as set out in the Bill, will be just under £1.8million per year between 2015-16 and 2019-20, with an initial upfront cost of around £1million. The total costs will be spread across all the public bodies involved, ranging from £600,000 to the Welsh Government, to £40,000 (combined) for 73 community councils affected by the Bill (~£550 per council). The total cost of the reporting/monitoring well-being goals, between 2015-2020, will be around £10million.

The Future Generations Commissioner will cost £1.46million per year. This includes payments of up to £350 per day to members of the advisory panel, staffing costs (£948,000) – which will include plenty of "officer level" appointments - and general office running costs. Over the five year projections that's a total of around £7.3million.

The Public Service Boards will cost between £2.3million and £2.93million per year for the five years after the passing of the Act. Most of that will go towards partnership support and developing well-being plans themselves. It's expected each of the service boards will lay out around £414,000 per year on public engagement. Based on the figures provided, the total cost of the Public Service Boards between 2015-16 and 2019-20 is around £13million.

So the total estimated cost of any Well-being of Future Generation Act, over five financial years, is at least £30.3million.

A sustainable water-saturated miniature pyrotechnic device

An all too familiar Welsh way of doing things : talk in offices, ticks in boxes.
The launch of a flagship law should've been a cause for celebration,
but the response has been near-mute.
(Pic : Sustainable Cities Collective)

This is – Human Transplantation Act 2013 aside – the Welsh Government's flagship law of the Fourth Assembly. I suppose you can say it's been set up to be the lasting legacy of this generation of Welsh Ministers, and what they want to be remembered for once they retire, hence the Bill's title.

I presume this was supposed to be the Welsh Government's "big announcement" before going into recess (along with the local government white paper), its intention being to leave us all wanting more and to get the chattering classes pondering it over the summer.

This is supposed to be a radical, progressive, generation-defining law that "Wales is going to be famous for in the future".

If it really were that though, it would be everywhere right now. The world's media would be paying attention to little old Wales, while those at the other end of the M4 will be actively trying to learn from what we're attempting to do here.

In a way, this is another victim of the Alun Davies scandal. It hasn't been Carwyn's week, has it?

Aside from Click on Wales articles (here, here) and this blog today, it's barely made a ripple. The Western Mail had a negative spin, but was truthful - their Assembly correspondent Graham Henry (who, like myself, is no fan of Assemblese) described the Bill's launch event as "the closest we will come to a jargon nirvana" on Twitter. BBC Wales focused on the Wales We Want public attitudes survey. ITV Wales – as far as I can tell – didn't even bother. There are pretty good reasons for that.

Let's review what we get from this Bill : a Commissioner (whom already exists but is being put on the statute books), another collection of unelected patronage-based committees hovering above local government (with obligatory involvement of the Third Sector), and a set of rather broad catch all goals that you would expect any government in any liberal democracy to want to work towards.

Yeah, this is definitely Welsh Labour's baby alright.

A focused sustainable development law might've been boring, but it would've been a bit more intellectually honest than this.

That doesn't mean it's all bad. I like the idea of a once-a-term "Future Trends Report", for example. That could be incredibly useful. It looks like community councils are going to get a beefed-up public role too, and I don't really have a problem with another Commissioner.

If you're bored now though - it's not as if many of you are going to plough through everything written above - I'm going to make this a bit more interesting.

You could, in a twisted way, interpret this Bill as being an embryonic written Welsh Constitution. It sets out clear long-term goals and establishes a set of core principles "the Welsh state" will be obligated to work towards.

However, while constitutions and long-term goals are nice, they're not policy and they often don't warrant legislative measures.

The Bill could potentially throw up some very nasty situations if passed too. There's the question of what would happen if two or more of the well-being goals clash - housing (communities) and the Welsh language (culture) for instance? Which would win out? Are some of the six well-being goals more important than others?

"Klingons off the starboard bow"
It's all very well the Welsh Government setting well-being goals, but they've
completely neglected the impact this lot can do to torpedo those goals.
(Pic : The Guardian)

Also, while the Welsh Government and public bodies are going to be subject to this law, it doesn't seem to take into consideration actions by the UK Government or private sector which could have a negative impact on the six Welsh well-being goals. Westminster's primacy says hello.

For example, most energy powers rest with the UK Government, so they could - theoretically – unilaterally dump nuclear waste from around the UK in Wales if no community comes forward, or open up as much land as possible for fracking. That could, in the worse circumstances, trash many of the Welsh well-being goals (like ecological resilience and health). Yet the UK Government or private companies wouldn't be subject to this law because areas like defence and nuclear energy are non-devolved.

The Welsh Government would in a farcical position of being bound by this law not to do the same thing in their own territory, nor would they be able to prevent another government running roughshod over it. It's the equivalent of a "No Bombing" sign in a swimming pool.

What would happen if there's another round of welfare reform which would negatively impact the well-being goal to improve equality of opportunity? Would the Bill - from a subordinate legislature - override Westminster's sovereignty and force Whitehall to reconsider their actions? It wouldn't, would it? In that situation, sadly, the Bill's completely and utterly worthless. The very unbalanced nature of the Union - something Labour are keen to protect - could sink the Welsh Government's own "legacy law".

So in one swoop the Welsh Government might've just made the best legal and social justice argument for Welsh independence. They didn't think of it like that though, did they?

You would expect me to be pleased with that, but – alas - in its current form, the Bill should be rejected. It needs to go back to the drawing board and become a straight-up Sustainable Development Bill, or possibly merged with the proposed Planning Bill.

That's not because it's poorly thought through, but because - aside from more committees and a new Commissioner - there's absolutely no way in hell any Welsh Government, of any colour, will ever live up to the well-being goals.

It should be rejected because - until they can prove that they can back words with deeds - it's too optimistic a vision of the future for our politicians to work towards. That's a sad thing to say, but it's true. And believe me I wish it wasn't so.

Read More

Newport's M4 debate painted black and blue

Black bypass or Blue upgrade?
There's been more debate recently over the "Newport Question".
(Pic : BBC Wales)

In recent weeks, the debate over possible solutions to the "Newport Question" – What measures need to be taken to relieve pressure on the M4? - briefly heated up.

As you'll know, the current proposals (Newport's M4 coronary bypass) include building a brand new M4 bypass ("Black Route") using the borrowing powers outlined in the Wales Bill. The consultation has closed as far as I can tell, but the bypass is the preferred option of both Welsh and UK Governments.

However, a rival option has emerged courtesy of transport expert Prof. Stuart Cole called the "Blue Route" (pdf). This wouldn't involve the construction of a new M4 bypass, but would instead upgrade the existing steelworks road and A48 to the south of the city itself - more from Plaid Monmouth and Click on Wales.

Black vs Blue illustrated
(Taken from Google Earth - click to enlarge)

The Black Route

Supporters

• Welsh Government/Welsh Labour (as a "preferred route")
• Welsh Conservatives
• UK Government
• Newport City Council (Labour-controlled)
• Newport residents (South Wales Argus poll putting support at 69% [Jan 2014])
• Confederation of Business and Industry (CBI)
• Institute of Civil Engineers Wales

Proposals (as outlined)

A complete bypass of Newport stretching from Magor to Castleton (Junction 23a-Junction 29), built to three-lane motorway standard. It would pass south of the current steelworks road, cutting across northern edge of the Gwent Levels. Then, it passes through Newport Docks via a new crossing of the River Usk, travels south of Duffryn, before rejoining the M4 at Castleton, where it'll also tie in with the A48(M) which goes directly to Cardiff City Centre. As yet it's uncertain whether this new stretch of the M4 would be tolled or not, or what format the crossing of the Usk will take (tunnel or bridge).

Advantages

• Significantly increased capacity – It'll be wider than the existing stretch of the M4 through Newport and will include hard shoulders throughout its length. There'll also be fewer access points, meaning local traffic won't be weaving in and out trying to cross the city.
• Less disruption - It'll be constructed as a completely new "offline" route, with minimal disruption to current traffic.
• Big economic boost – It's said it would have the maximum impact in terms of economic activity, having a positive impact on logistics businesses and in terms of access to and from markets in south Wales. I haven't been able to find any raw figures, however.

Disadvantages

• It'll cost ~ £1billion – That's a hell of a lot of (borrowed) money for an ~11 mile stretch of motorway. You have to question if this is "taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut" (c/o Syniadau). There are disputes over the projected traffic figures which hint that the numbers used to support the Black Route are over-estimated, and car usage has "plateaued". This dispute could open the door to a lengthy and costly legal challenge.
• It might be tolled – I'm not sure if this has been completely ruled out or not, but you've got to wonder where the Welsh Government are going to get the funds to pay back the borrowing. It's not like there's a franchise charge like the railways. Experience from the UK's only toll motorway around Birmingham shows that tolling puts drivers off using it. If the Severn Bridge tolls are used to pay for the new M4 instead then it could prolong the use of high tolls there.
• Significant environmental impact – Although it's likely air quality will improve around the current M4, the Black Route crosses through the Gwent Levels – and several sites of special scientific interest – and is likely to produce significant amounts of carbon emissions just through its construction. "Sustainable" it ain't.

The Blue Route

Supporters

• Institute of Welsh Affairs (who sponsored/authored the report with Prof. Stuart Cole, University of South Wales)
• Plaid Cymru
• Welsh Liberal Democrats
• Green Party of EnglandandWales
• Federation of Small Businesses (FSB)
• Institute of Directors
• Friends of the Earth Cymru (tentative support)
• Gwent Wildlife Trust (tentative support)

Proposals (as outlined)

Described as a combination of the existing A48 Southern Distributor Road with the A4810 steelworks road (which was bought for £7.7million by the Welsh Government in 2010 and upgraded), the Blue Route runs from Junction 23a in Magor through to Junction 28 at Tredegar Park. It also includes a stretch of the A48 from the Coldra interchange (Junction 24).

All these roads would be upgraded to a four-lane dual carriageway motorway standard, and existing traffic light junctions and roundabouts along the route would be replaced by motorway-style grade separated junctions. The report says there should be enough room to expand to three-lanes in the future if required.

Advantages

• It's cheaper and quicker to build – The Blue Route is estimated to cost £380million, saving at least £600million compared to the Black Route. That £600million could be spent on public transport improvements, and would go a long way to funding things like the South Wales Metro. Prof. Cole also estimates that the Blue Route could be completed by 2018 (more likely to be the early 2020s, IMO), while the Black Route could take until 2031 to be finished.
• Almost completely avoids the Gwent Levels – A huge environmental plus point is that it only skirts the edge of the Gwent Levels and would mostly be constructed along existing road corridors.
• It'll still be constructed to motorway standards – It'll just be a two-lane motorway instead of three-lane. It'll still increase overall motorway capacity and is only one lane narrower than the Black Route.

Disadvantages

• It'll cause more disruption during construction – You could easily see roads across southern Newport closed or restricted for several months at a time as the Blue Route is built. This could cause problems along the current A48 in addition to all the problems on the current M4. If both diversionary routes suffered major disruption at the same time that would be the equivalent of a fatal heart attack to south Wales transport.
• Too many junctions could create more bottlenecks – Some of the existing problems with local traffic using the M4 to get from one part of Newport to another will simply shift to the Blue Route. While you can even argue that because it's to the quiet south of the city it might not attract enough local traffic at all.
• The grade separation of existing junctions could be difficult – Looking along the route on Google Earth you can see that there's not much room to fit full blown grade-separated junctions in without creating junctions similar in style to that of Junction 41 in Port Talbot. It'll be an engineering challenge and could be an unforeseen cost as there's no detailed plan of the Blue Route available yet.

Plaid's Premature Presentation?

AMs often complain that their committee work isn't given the attention or respect it deserves.
So why did Plaid Cymru preempt an inquiry by a committee one of their own AMs chairs?
(Pic : National Assembly of Wales)

The National Assembly's Environment and Sustainability Committee – chaired by Alun Ffred Jones AM (Plaid, Arfon) - are currently undertaking an inquiry into the Newport M4 plans.

On 5^th June, they sent a letter (pdf) to Business & Economy Minister, Edwina Hart (Lab, Gower), expressing concerns about the environmental impact of the Black Route and asking her to outline how and why the Welsh Government decided to prefer it over other options.

I should point out that plans to completely bypass Newport have been in place since at least 2004 (pdf), and the Black Route is a continuation of those plans.

A few weeks later, Plaid Cymru publicly threw their backing behind the Blue Route, using their weekly debate in the National Assembly on 18th June to call upon the Welsh Government to rule out the Black Route on value for money and environmental grounds.

With the committee inquiry yet to report back, some AMs questioned the timing of Plaid's debate. During First Minister's Questions on 17^th June, Carwyn Jones said :

"What I find farcical is that the....Committee is looking at the M4 at the moment, the Chair has sent a letter to the Minister, and we have a debate tomorrow prejudging the entire issue.....It calls into question the committee’s entire proceedings in that regard. Why on earth have committee proceedings when, half way through, a party makes its own mind up? That makes no sense at all. "

Both the person who led the debate - Plaid's economy spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth AM (Plaid, Ynys Mon) - and Eluned Parrott AM (Lib Dem, South Wales Central) defended opposition parties' right to scrutinise the government whenever they choose. Eluned was less forthcoming when it came to the timing however, suggesting it was "serendipitous" that the debate coincided with the publication of the letter to Edwina Hart from Alun Ffred Jones laying out the committee's concerns.

Mick Antoniw AM (Lab, Pontypridd) – a member of the Environment Committee – went further, saying it was, "imprudent and highly irresponsible....asking the Assembly to adopt a position on the issue....before we have completed our inquiry". Mick was exaggerating things but he has a point. The correct term is predetermination (c/o Tim Kerr QC).

Two days after the debate, Edwina Hart wrote back to the committee (pdf) saying that as there was a formal ongoing decision-making process she was unable to give further evidence to them. I'm sure the preempting of the committee report gave her an excuse not to as well.

Committee work is often held in high regard by AMs (and myself), so I doubt I'm the only person disappointed that Plaid chose to go about this in the manner that they did. The Blue Route deserved to be treated with a bit more care, as it isn't the be all and end all it's being made out to be. It has problems of its own.

You would expect all AMs, from all parties, to approach major issues like this objectively. Committee inquiries are often the main avenue by which to form an objective opinion after lengthy written and oral evidence submission, followed by cross-party deliberation. Having a committee report backing your party view is therefore very important in terms of forming an argument. In this case Plaid come across as impatient and intellectually lazy.

Although it's no secret that Plaid oppose the Black Route and have done for some time - it was Ieuan Wyn Jones who put a halt to the original plans - it's like telling the Assembly, "We've made our mind up without considering all of the evidence - even from a committee one of our own AMs chairs. Now we expect you to as well".

Considering he's a consummate parliamentarian, I'm sure that if Dafydd Elis-Thomas AM (Plaid, Dwyfor Meirionnydd) were still chair of the Environment Committee he would never have allowed this debate to go ahead. He abstained during the vote on the motion.

Plaid's motion supporting the Blue Route was comprehensively altered and rejected, after Labour were (seemingly) whipped into not voting on the motion at all due to the minister's "ongoing decision-making process". The Tories were never going to back it so it sunk.

I'm not aiming criticism at anyone in particular because Plaid aren't the only party that do this; the Tories preempted an ongoing tourism inquiry with their own debate last week, while Labour tried something similar in relation to the Williams Commission. Plaid have also shown recently - via their sport discussion paper and others - that they do take committee inquiries into account when presenting an argument or coming up with new policies. I don't see why it had to be different this time.

Sadly, Plaid have form when it comes to adopting positions or taking decisions without considering all of the evidence. Bad habits like these can become a political party's dark side if they're not careful.

UPDATE 16/07/14 : Well there you have it; the Black Route has won. The Welsh Government made the announcement that it was to go ahead earlier today.

I'll give credit to Edwina Hart in that she doesn't muck about, and she justified the decision based on the consultation evidence alone. But any moral high ground Welsh Labour might've had after Plaid's preempting of the committee inquiry has just evaporated, making the First Minister and Mick Antoniw look silly after their righteous indignation a few weeks ago.

There might still be time for this decision to be reconsidered, and the Environment Committee are yet to report back on their inquiry. What I fear now is that this project is going to suck up a significant portion of Welsh transport spending, and the South Wales Metro - which could probably be completed in 10 years - is now going to become a 30-40 year "generational" project.

As I said last week, "sustainability" is meaningless in Welsh politics.

UPDATE 17/07/14 : A new post covering all the developments and the politicial fallout - Newport M4 - Smell the Glove

Read More

Domestic Violence Bill introduced to National Assembly

There were estimated to be more than 420,000 victims of domestic
violence (both genders combined) in Wales during 2011-12.
(Pic : South Wales Evening Post)

Today's legislative news is dominated by the "flagship" Future Generations Bill, which I'll hopefully come back to at the end of the week.

In other Welsh law news you might've noticed, after an extensive and lengthy consultation which garnered some 150 responses, last week, Local Government Minister Lesley Griffiths (Lab, Wrexham) introduced the Gender-based Violence, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence Bill to the National Assembly.

You know the drill. Bill here (pdf), explanatory memorandum here (pdf).

Gender-based violence : The need for a new law

According to the 2011-12 EnglandandWales Crime Survey, in Wales alone :

• 11.7% of women and 5.1% of men say they've been victims of any kind of domestic abuse.
• 3.2% of women and 0.7% of men say they've been victims of sexual assault.
• 7.8% of women and 3.5% of men say they've been victims of stalking.

All of this has an economic impact too; in terms of public spending, sickness rates and police investigations. Based on figures produced in a 2009 report from Lancaster University's Prof. Sylvia Walby (pdf), the cumulative cost (economic, public service and emotional) of domestic violence could be as high as £826.4million in Wales (on a population share figure). That figure doesn't including gender-based violence like female genital mutilation and sexual assaults.

At present, the Welsh Government say that domestic and gender-based violence is a complex issue, with many public sector bodies involved in dealing with it. Indeed, the devolution settlement itself only partially covers it.

The main aims of the Bill – in shorthand – are to : provide leadership from the top through a national strategy, place duties on public sector organisations to correctly report and work together when it comes to possible cases of domestic or gender-based violence, and take preventative measures to prevent such violence from happening in the first place.

What does the Bill propose?

Public bodies - like the fire service and local health boards - will be required under the
proposed law to develop strategies to improve responses to suspected cases of abuse.
(Pic : Eric Jones via BBC Wales)

Strategies & Guidance

The Act will :

• Place a duty on the Welsh Government to :
• Produce a national strategy for domestic and gender-based violence sometime in the second half of 2016, setting out their objectives and timescales for achieving them.
• Set out a number of measurable indicators to determine if they're meeting the goals of their national strategy or the Act in general.
• Submit an annual report on their progress to the National Assembly.
• Place a duty on local government and local health boards to produce their own joint local strategies - along the same lines as the national one - within one year of the next local authority elections (scheduled for May 2017). They'll also have to produce an annual report each financial year.
• Grant Welsh Ministers the power to issue guidance to relevant authorities (local government, fire service, local health boards etc.) - which they must follow - setting out what they should do in terms of preventing domestic and gender-based violence, training staff, sharing information between each other and co-operation. This guidance will need to be approved by the National Assembly.
• Grants Welsh Ministers the power to issue directions to authorities in order for them to comply with the Act if they are failing to do so.

Ministerial Adviser

The Act will :

• Create the post of Ministerial Adviser on Gender-based Violence, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence, paid for directly by the Welsh Government.
• Set out the adviser's role as (broadly-speaking) undertaking research and advising ministers (or other individuals/organisations) on issues falling under the Act. They'll also have to produce and publish an annual plan setting out what they intend to do.

The scope of Gender-based Violence, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence

The Act broadly covers :

• "Abuse" – defined as physical, sexual, psychological, emotional or financial abuse (property theft, fraud, pressure to spend/misuse money).
• "Domestic Abuse" – "abuse" where the victim is associated with the abuser via : marriage, engagement, civil partnership, live-in relationship, relatives (presumably including step-relatives), boyfriend/girlfriend or through joint parental responsibility.
• "Female genital mutilation (FGM)" – as outlined in the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003.
• "Harassment" – Speech or other action that a reasonable person would consider to be harassment. The Crown Prosecution Service have more specific definitions of harassment and stalking.
• "Sexual exploitation" – as outlined in Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

So what's important here isn't the Bill/future Act itself but the proposed national strategy. This could include (based on the content of the explanatory memorandum) :

• "Ask & Act" – Professionals (hinted as meaning NHS workers, social workers, teachers, police and firefighters) will be encouraged to ask people they suspect of being abused if they are being abused, and then – through training and guidance – encouraged to act on that in order to prevent any suspected abuse from continuing.
• Multi-agency forums – Collaboration to ensure there's a consistent approach across the public sector.
• A National Training Framework – New training guidelines will ensure a consistent approach to care of suspected victims of abuse, split into 6 levels. Level 1 training is the basic level that would cover all public service staff, Level 3 covers professionals and specialists who work directly with victims, while Level 6 covers high-level strategy.
• Public information campaigns and education programmes – Compulsory relationship lessons in schools have been dropped from the Bill itself, but that doesn't mean they can't be included in the national strategy, part of training for teachers (under the new training framework) or included as part of the current review of the national curriculum.

How much will this cost?

The new National Training Framework will cost a total of £2.8million over the next four years, with just under £440,000 being spent directly by the Welsh Government, and the rest picked up jointly by public service organisations.

Introducing the training and guidance for "Ask and Act" will cost another £2.8million over four years, with the Welsh Government spending £374,000 directly.

The multi-agency forums will cost £7,000 (to pay a specialist to establish them). The cost of the government adviser will be £244,000 in total over the next four years, including the £11,000 cost of recruiting them. I'm sure there are plenty of "insiders" eying up the job.

The cost of establishing a Commissioner (similar to that for Older People, Children etc.) - which was considered as an option - would've been somewhere between £585,000 and £630,000 per year. This was rejected in favour of the cheaper government adviser post instead.

So the total cost of the legislation – if passed – from 2014-15 to 2018-19 will be £5.61million (~£1.4million per year), mostly borne by the Welsh public sector at large. Based on the statistics given (16.8% of over 16s, or 424,578 people), it works out at around £3.36 per victim of domestic violence per year.

The explanatory memorandum says that it's "not possible" to quantify the financial benefits, but it's worth again pointing towards the estimated total £826.4million impact of such violence and behaviour on the Welsh purse.

The Relationship Lessons, Gender & Smacking Issues
        

The first big change from the original proposal was that, as aforementioned, compulsory relationship education lessons for schoolchildren have been dropped from the Bill.

You would expect this sort of thing to be covered in PSE lessons anyway under the National Curriculum – which, as said, is currently under review. I don't think it's ever been made clear precisely what "relationship education" means in practice, and I suspect the Welsh Government are trying to prevent - what I've called before – a "curriculum by statute" developing where the curriculum is set inflexibly through laws. I wouldn't be surprised though if this ends up back in the Bill after it's gone through committee. It's too valuable as a preventative measure to ignore completely.

The Bill also drew complaints from Wales Violence Against Women Action Group's Dr Mwenya Chimba for not specifically focusing on women - whether titular or in the content of the Bill itself. This law was, of course, originally touted as a "Violence against Women Bill".

The only specific reference to women and girls relates to female genital mutilation (aka. FGM, female circumcision); an issue which I explored in a bit more graphic detail last year (Life, Ethics & Independence III – Circumcision).

It's a matter of cold hard fact that gender-based and domestic violence disproportionately affects women and girls, and the Welsh Government acknowledge that in the explanatory memorandum.

The Welsh Government would've been negligent though if a Bill that focuses on domestic and gender-based violence ignored male victims. I'm not just referring to heterosexual men. The law would've been on shaky ground from the start if, for example, a lesbian couple falls under the Bill's provisions, but a gay couple doesn't. That's before adding transgenders into the mix. This sort of violence and emotional entrapment is wrong regardless of who's on the receiving end or who's dishing it out.

The Welsh Government were, therefore, absolutely right to make this Bill gender neutral, and get a thumbs up from me for doing so, as I'm sure they will from organisations that work with male victims of domestic violence.

I just hope AMs maintain the law's gender neutrality and don't cave in to pressure from the third sector to change it. Also, the strategies themselves should remain gender neutral too - though they could include measures specifically aimed at either gender where appropriate.

Unfortunately, and less complimentary to the Welsh Government, we have this law trying to protect adults from domestic abuse, yet the Welsh Government seem to be fine with hitting children as a form of punishment. This could provide a perfect opportunity for AMs to revisit a smacking ban if they so wish.

A (potentially) good law with no bite

In the absence of any control over the criminal justice side of this
kind of abuse, the outlined measures look limp - but still welcome.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

It's worth saying from the outset that this is the absolute maximum the Welsh Government can do to address the issues under the devolution settlement.

As criminal justice isn't devolved, this doesn't update/alter criminal law or create any new offences relating to domestic or gender-based violence. That's probably the Bill's biggest weakness, and so it reads like a highly technical administrative law that's unlikely to generate much in the way of headlines or public interest.

It looks like it's been stripped down compared to what was originally proposed during the drafting and white paper phases too. It gives the impression of being another "Enabling Act" that gives a lot of power to ministers (via setting the strategy) without clearly outlining within the Bill itself what they're going to do with said powers.

It's also unclear if the perpetrators of violence are going to get the help they need. Supporting victims has to be the priority, but some perpetrators might have undiagnosed or untreated mental illnesses, or grew up in an environment where domestic or gender-based violence was the norm.

Despite all that, at least the Welsh Government are doing something about it, and it genuinely could go some way to helping victims and their families over the next few years. It's often attitudes within key public services that lets victims down – whether it's because abuse has gone unreported or it's not taken seriously enough - and that's the law's focus.

It still needs some work though.

Read More

Pauline Jayne Donovan 1961-2014

My mother died at around 3:30 this afternoon, age 53, after deteriorating suddenly overnight.

I was there along with my father, brother, grandparents and aunt until the very end and I held her hand throughout. She died peacefully after mechanical support was withdrawn.

Part of me is relieved the uncertainty if over, and this has been – without a shadow of a doubt – the worst week or so of my life, and complete roller coaster of emotions and stress.

She was quite lucid when she was brought around from sedation on Monday and things were looking brighter – unfortunately I wasn't there at the time. Even this morning I was discussing how long she would be in hospital and what sort of adaptions could be made to make her life easier upon release.

Then we got "the phonecall". A phonecall I wouldn't wish on anybody, but we're probably all going to get at some point. It shows you how quickly these things can change.

Mam was always in relatively poor health, suffering from rheumatoid arthritis and COPD (from years of smoking - don't ever smoke), and arguably had the body of a 75 year old. I know it's cliched, but there's no more pain now.

I'd like to place on record - on behalf of the family - my gratitude to the staff at the Princess of Wales Hospital intensive care unit, whose professionalism, skill, sensitivity and dedication was downright inspirational. They've been stars since day one, but they could only do so much and they did their best.

I'd like to thank everyone who has left messages of support in the last blog too. I'm having problems logging in to Disqus so I couldn't thank you all personally.

It's hard news to take obviously, but there's been plenty of gallows humour already (and she would want that) – as I said, I'm glad the uncertainty is over. This is inevitably going to take a while to come to terms with, but I'll pencil in July for a return to blogging.

Goodbye, Mam. You were great fun, a great laugh, a great friend. I'm going to miss you as will many others. So it goes.

Read More

500th Post : The Sliding Scale of Nationalism

I've reached an important milestone today - the heady heights of 500 blogs.

I'd like to thank everyone who's read or scanned over my ramblings for the last three years. I might make it look easy, but it's hard work - often miserable, sometimes fun – but always rewarding. Taking time to read it means a lot and I hope I can continue to count on your support for however long this blog continues. Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi.

To "celebrate", I'm going to do what I usually do and over-analyse an abstract topic.

There's been some discussion on here, and for many years elsewhere, about different strands of nationalism. Some people in Plaid Cymru, for example, don't support independence. Meanwhile, people who I would consider hardcore unionists have been tarred with the "nationalist" brush simply for backing Silk Commission recommendations.

In the light of a high-profile Twitter row involving the Welsh rugby captain, it's fair to say there's little  understanding of other people's points of view and how they might form their opinion on the matter.

A person's relationship with a nation can change based across a range of different factors. In my opinion, there are three broad identities that engender a sense of nationalism.

• National Identity : The stomach – This is the primal, visual manifestation of nationalism. It's a "gut instinct" where you define who and what you are, and the visible outward label. This could also be expanded to include ethnic identity too. This asks the question, "Who am I?"
• Cultural Identity : The heart – This is the more fluid, dainty identity by expressing what you feel about the nation you belong to, trying to figure out how to express that, and trying to determine what being Welsh/British/English represents. This asks the question, "What does it mean?"
• Political Identity : The head – The rational, thinking side of it. This determines how you express nationalism based on decision-making, policy and democracy. It determines how far you're willing to go in terms of self-determination and how the nation fits into that. This asks the question, "How does it work?"

In trying to determine what all this actually looks like, I've come up with a sort of Kinsey Scale of nationalist sentiment for each of them, based on two poles - Welsh & British nationalism. It's worth pointing out that there are no "right" or "wrong" answers here.

National Identity

(Click to enlarge)

The only solid figures we have from this are from the 2011 census (covered in more detail here).

The results clearly showed that a majority of people in Wales consider themselves exclusively Welsh with no British identity whatsoever. This sentiment was stronger in some parts of Wales than others – in particular the south Wales Valleys.

People who consider themselves Welsh & British are in a withered minority. In fact, more people in Wales consider themselves English-only (11.2%) than Welsh & British. It seems most people have a very firm idea of what their national identity is : Welsh, English or British – not a mix.

You would think, therefore, that the fortunes of nationalist politics in Wales would be much better than they are currently.

Clearly, national identity isn't that important in political terms. It's been successfully adopted by all of the main political parties in Wales to such an extent that it's become rather elastic, or is being used as a dog whistle when it suits their ends – as we saw recently with Welsh Labour's claims of a Tory "War on Wales".

It can be a successful tactic too, as playing to national identity illicits a primal, somewhat territorial, response in voters and public. As a living embodiment of Welsh self-determination, many of us probably will defend politicians - and devolution as an institution - if there's any hint of an outside attack that would infringe upon Welsh identity or self-respect.

An exception there would be those who would consider themselves British, and/or have an outward antipathy towards all forms of Welshness.

The real nuanced layers of nationalism and its outward expression perhaps lie in cultural identity.

Cultural Identity

(Click to enlarge)

Although culture and nationality are inextricably linked, they needn't be symbiotic. You can measure national identity in the census, and you can measure its political expression in voting intentions. Cultural nationality is very hard to quantify.

So, how can you tell if you're culturally Welsh, culturally British, or a mix of both? I suppose it's what's in your heart. If you feel Welsh you are Welsh, likewise with British. If you're comfortable with both – so be it.

The outward signs of a person's cultural identity involve those things outside the formality of national identity, ethnicity or voting. That includes : attitudes towards the Welsh language, sports, literature, arts, hobbies and media consumption habits.

Those at either end of the scale are more romantic in their cultural identity. They probably get a sentimental glint in their eye thinking of traditions and are highly involved in cultural affairs of their chosen identity. They're proud of what they are, and aren't afraid to tell the world. When that level of patriotism turns unpleasant it becomes chauvinism.

The next step down would be those who are very firm in their cultural identity. On the Welsh side, they might speak Welsh or really enjoy things like Welsh literature and Welsh music but aren't obsessive about it and are a bit more flexible.

Logically speaking, those who identify themselves as culturally British
will have to accept things like the Eisteddfod and Welsh language as
a part of British culture despite being uniquely Welsh.
(Pic : Ynni Cymru)

Likewise, anyone considering themselves "culturally British" will still have to accept all of Welsh culture – including the language – as a part of that identity. British culture without the Welsh bits isn't "Britishness" but "Englishness" because it rejects a key part of what makes "Britain" Britain.

Then there are those with a more fluid cultural identity, but with a clear preference for one. On the Welsh side they would be "Ninety Minute Nationalists". I've come up with "Olympic Unionists" for a British equivalent as I couldn't think of anything better.

Someone supporting Wales at the Six Nations, or the Welsh national football team, is 100% Welsh for ninety minutes. Even an ardent Unionist is advocating Welsh independence by supporting the Welsh national side - which by most normal conventions of international sport shouldn't even exist.

However, once the game is over, their Welshness disappears and they don't think about it too much.

That's why "Ninety Minute Nationalist" is adopted as a pejorative. To the hard nationalist, the position is nonsensical, as Welsh culture should be – and is – linked not only to national identity, but political nationalism. To use footballing terms, 90 minute nationalists are seen as glory hunters and armchair fans, while nationalists are season ticket holders and will question anyone not seen to be pulling their weight. Similarly, from the opposite end, hardcore royalists might have similar suspicions of of Celtic republicans.

Things become a lot more complicated when you come to ethnic minorities, who are cited as feeling more British than white ethnicities, despite coming from cultures and backgrounds which are very different and contribute to the "melting pot" of Welsh and British society. Ethnic minorities might see adopting "Britishness" as a safer option, as Englishness in England has been claimed by the far-right - though that's starting to change.

Even the most ardent unionist can support Welsh independence
for 90 minutes - plus time to chug a beer or two.
(Pic : City School of Languages)

Being stuck in the middle might be a sign of cultural apathy and no real strong connection to either pole than a cultural identity in itself.

I was born in a former colony, have an Irish surname, support an English football team, haven't read much Welsh literature and most of my favourite authors and books are American. I don't speak much Welsh and I've listen to more Norwegian and German music.

In cultural terms, I should be about as British as they come or don't have a cultural identity at all, placing me somewhere slap bang in the middle. Based on that alone I probably have more in common with the Lib Dems and Greens than Plaid Cymru.

Yet I'm still one of the more prominent hard nationalists and supporters of Welsh independence out there. I can only relate to this from my own anecdotal experiences, but far from nationalism being solely about identity issues, it clearly goes a lot, lot deeper.

You can like British culture and still be a Welsh nationalist. Likewise, you can even live and breathe Wales in everything you do and still be a British nationalist. Look at the some of the Tories.

Political Ideology & The Constitution

(Click to enlarge)

I suppose this is the meat when it comes to nationalism and national identity. It mostly manifests itself as support (or lack of) for varying levels of self-determination, without which a nation can't exist.

At either end, you're going to have the fanatical nationalists - people who are exclusively and stridently Welsh or British. On the Welsh side, they'd support independence by any means necessary, and completely reject Britishness. On the British side, they'll show an antagonism towards any outward sign of "Welshness" and would equally support the union by any means necessary. You're talking Northern Irish paramilitary groups, historical figures like Owain Glyndwr and protest organisations. So they're thin on the ground, if they even exist at all in modern Wales.

A step down from that at either end would be those who support Welsh independence on both an ethnic and civic basis, and those who oppose all forms of devolution – but would stop short of violent direct action, just be very, very vocal about it.

There are differences between between ethnic and civic nationalism . The former is generally seen as more right-wing because it links blood to soil, while the latter is bog-standard social democracy with extra flags, and has pretty much been adopted by all the main parties in Wales to varying degrees.

I probably count as an "8" – a civic nationalist who supports independence more strongly than mainstream opinion and perhaps stronger than Plaid Cymru. Such people are often called "hard/dry nationalists".

The vast, vast majority of people will fall somewhere in the middle. This includes those who are civic nationalists but don't support independence strongly (Plaid Cymru in general). Also, "wet nationalist" Home Rulers who support further devolution or a form of federalism and consider themselves happy to be Welsh – this would include the likes of David Melding AM (Con, South Wales Central).

Welsh Labour are arguably slap bang in the middle – they're happy with devolution as it is, and are open to more powers, but would fall short of federalism, considering themselves both "Welsh & British". Yet, as the census figures paradoxically show, being "Welsh & British" is something of a minority thing and enjoys less support than Welsh independence. So playing up dual-identity is unlikely to win support on its own. It looks like, quite frankly, nobody cares if they're Welsh or British when it comes to politics, unless they're already a nationalist.

Also lurking are the devo-sceptics (or devo-realists), who think devolution has gone far enough. They perhaps consider themselves more British than Welsh (but will play up the Welshness when it suits them) and would likely oppose further powers, but not the principle of limited self-determination as a compromise. I'd image the Conservative grass roots would be found here, as would many Old Labour and Labour MPs.

(Click on Wales)

It's worth noting this perceived spread of nationalism within parties as it can cause problems. Plaid and UKIP are fairly obvious candidates to be placed at either end – one a Welsh nationalist party, the other a British nationalist party. The Lib Dems have historically been "Home Rule" party so are fairly easy to place too.

But even within those parties, there are going to be differences. Dafydd Elis-Thomas AM (Plaid, Dwyfor Meirionnydd) is clearly a Lib Dem style "Home Ruler", while UKIP have come around to tolerating the Assembly's existence.

People who consider themselves "internationalists/citizens of the world" might often fall under British nationalism too because they support the status quo by default. The Green Party of EnglandandWales  gives the impression of having quite a few of these - and have really struggled to adapt to post-devolution Wales, despite being officially federalist - so are arguably closer to UKIP than Plaid in terms of nationalism, but not general ideology.

Having said all this, it's worth being careful in strictly equating levels of support for independence with nationalism. If there were a Welsh independence referendum tomorrow, with no underlying case along the same lines as Scotland's Future, even I'd vote no. It's one thing to support something superficially, it's another thing entirely to check the details - and there are plenty of details on Welsh independence that need to be ironed out if a realistic case is ever going to be made.

Although it's true that you can't eat a flag, they can make very good tablecloths for a skilled chef.

Nationalists shouldn't get too despondent about low levels of support for independence, as all the foundations are there for a sudden change in opinion given the right circumstances. However, it's off the menu for now and we should perhaps learn to accept it and play the long game. Many hard nationalists might not like the idea of Plaid sidelining independence, but they're broadly right to do so.

Likewise, unionists shouldn't get complacent about high levels of support for the Union, which is perhaps all head and no heart. Technocratic arguments about finance and borders will only get you so far. As the Scottish independence campaign is proving, heads can be turned and the positive case for union is – in some areas - built on sand.

You're going to cause controversy in politics when you try to mix the three identities or try and stamp a single one on people.

One of the most important modern human virtues is tolerance. Tolerating something doesn't mean have to like or accept it. You should just respect that some people are going to have different ideas and values from you. When we can all tolerate something or someone you don't like, without resorting to smears or hyperbole, it's a sign our society is starting to mature and our media along with it.

Read More