³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Blimey.

I disappear for a few days - (real) life intervening - and return to find you back in the bunkers, lobbing facts, stats and a fair bit of dirt at each other. Perhaps it's too much chocolate, or has Rhodri Morgan's 400 m-sprint-for-the-line comment concentrated minds and hardened attitudes on all sides of the debate?

For the record my own handwritten notes from his evidence to the All Wales Convention last week read "No have gone for marathon. We on Yes side - 400m sprint to the end." That end, however, is a referendum won, so no surprises that the First Minister's metaphor has cheered up some key Plaid figures.

More than one made it clear at their Spring conference that they've found the Convention's interpretation of the terms of reference they were given "slavishly neutral." The critics included some of those who drew up the terms of reference and who had clearly anticipated a different approach, or perhaps a different context to the Convention's work. There was praise for the way Sir Emyr and his team are "effectively measuring public opinion" (swayed, perhaps, by the opinon poll which gave the Yes side a clear lead) but they were castigated for failing to properly explain the current system of transferring powers.

At one fringe meeting both Cynog Dafis of Tomorrow's Wales and Helen Mary Jones AM suggested it was plain wrong to present the choice we might face in a referendum like this:

Do you want to stick with Part 3 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, so that primary powers are devolved a little by little? Or do you want them all in one fell swoop, in other words, move on at once to Part 4?

The Convention's choice of imagery came in for stick early on: for colourful sweets in jars read primary powers. But the complaint at the conference was that the Convention's definition of Part 3 - devolving the powers little by little - is simply wrong. The process just isn't that simple, neither that direct nor straightforward. But present it in those terms and why wouldn't a lot of voters believe the little by little approach is preferable to a sudden "storm", as Cynog Dafis put it, of sticky sweeties?

One senior figure seemed convinced that by making his comment at all, Rhodri Morgan was suggesting he wanted to deliver a Yes vote himself. The theory went like this: having had to take a back seat when the vote was won in 1997, the Labour leader was now toying with the idea of calling a snap referendum, even before he'd heard back from Sir Emyr. More hope than belief in that one, surely.

From never using the word 'independence', Plaid now use it rather a lot. It is, as one member put it, a bit like a naughty boy who uses a rude word a lot just because he can. The party ought to discuss it solely as an academic exercise, went one theory, discuss it as one of many future options for Wales and be extremely wary of nailing just that one colour to the Plaid mast. Why on earth choose to hand ammunition to No campaigners and the slippery slope argument?

The other was that if independence is your long-term aim, then you should say so honestly, out loud and in context. The 'other side' will use it against you, whether you utter the word or not.

Take great care, came the retort. It is perfectly possible to deal with the difficulties that arise when you launch a website to promote independence for Wales even before a referendum is held on delivering a parliament - but you must absolutely intend to deal with those difficulties. Be warned.

Adam Price's use of the 'i' word in his speech was novel. He coupled it with that other hot topic at conference - 'that' Labour website and its adoption of Owain Glyndwr. "Labour now seem to support Welsh independence ... but only in the fifteenth century and a referendum in the next century ... maybe".

He clearly hadn't bumped into his more optimistic party colleague who has the referendum pencilled in for early next year.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?