Tweet After giving evidence to the All-Wales Convention last week, I noted that I wasn't entirely sure how to read some of the lines of questioning. Was Sir Emyr merely playing devil's advocate, or were his questions telling us something about the way he's thinking?
As a follow-up, there were aspects of his article in yesterday's Western Mail which left me wondering whether he isn't trying too hard to give the impression of a finely balanced debate. I thought his summary of the arguments for and against the implementation of Part 4 of the Act was a reasonable one; but I do wonder how anyone can really believe that the arguments, in the form expressed, are "equally compelling" on both sides.
His summary of the arguments against which have been presented to him seems to boil down to:
• It needs more time for the current system to bed down (a 'compulsive' argument, apparently, although on reflection, that's probably a better description than 'compelling')
• The current system is now starting to work
• Letting MPs scrutinise what the Assembly wants to do is the right way to proceed.
For me, that just shows how weak the arguments for the current system are in reality; they are all readily dismissed. The third, in particular, seemed to amount to an argument as much against the principle of legislative devolution as the timing.
The Great Survivor leaves to take new job after 26 years - IT has been clear for some time that Ieuan Wyn Jones had reached a crossroads in his 26 year political career. Plaid Cymru has been working through the proce...
10 hours ago