Arwyddocad Ympryd Gwynfor

Mae’n dri deg mlynedd ers sefydlu S4C yn dilyn cyhoeddiad Gwynfor i ymprydio hyd farwolaeth ac ymgyrch dorfol boblgaidd.

Beth , serch hynny, yw arwyddocad y digwyddiadau a arweiniodd at sefydlu S4C ddeng mlynedd ar hugain yn ôl i ni heddiw?

Does neb all ddweud i unrhyw sicrwydd beth allai wedi bod petai pethau wedi bod yn wahanol, felly barn yn unig gall rhywun ei roi. Ond byddwn i’n dadlau yn sicr y byddai’r iaith Gymraeg mewn sefyllfa gwanach o lawer pe na fyddai S4C wedi cael ei sefydlu. Does dim amheuaeth fod datblygiadau technolegol diweddar yn rhoi gobaith newydd i’r iaith gryfhau ac esblygu wrth i ddefnyddwyr yr iaith fedru cyhoeddi myfyrdodau, llyfrau, fideos a pheth wmbreth o bethau yn eu mamiath am y nesaf peth i ddim cost trwy’r we. Ond dim ond yn y saith neu wyth mlynedd diwethaf y mae’r we wirioneddol wedi cael ei ddemocrateiddio fel hyn. Heb S4C yn yr ugain mlynedd rhwng 1982 a 2002 rwy’n gwbl argyhoeddiedig y byddai’r Gymraeg wedi crebachu a sefydlu ei hun yn iaith y bobl hŷn heb ddim perthnasedd i’r genhedlaeth iau. Yr her fawr i S4C heddiw wrth gwrs yw parhau efo’r genhadaeth hon ond gwneud hynny gyda thirwedd technolegol cwbl wahanol.

Yn sicr byddai Gwynfor yn teimlo’n anghyfforddus efo’r haeriad mai ei weithred ef yn unig a arweiniodd at sefydlu S4C. Ei weithred ef oedd yr olaf mewn cyfres o weithredoedd dros flynyddoedd ac mai rhoi’r clod i Gwynfor yn unig yn anhegwch mawr i’r miloedd hynny a frwydrodd am flynyddoedd i sefydlu sianel deledu Gymraeg ei hiaith.

Ond mae sôn am S4C yn unig yn tynnu oddi ar weithred Gwynfor ac yn colli’r pwynt. Mae’n anwybyddu’r cyd-destun hanesyddol a’r cyd-destun personol.

Cofier fod ysbryd y Mudiad Cenedlaethol ar ei hisaf yn dilyn methiant Refferendwm ac etholiad 1979. Gellir dweud fod holl bwrpas bodolaeth Plaid Cymru ers 1925, a holl weithredoedd gwleidyddol Gwynfor drwy gydol ei oes, wedi arwain at y refferendwm hwnnw. Er gwaethaf holl fethiannau etholiadol Plaid Cymru a methianau ymgyrchoedd y Mudiad Cenedlaethol ar hyd y degwadau roedd ffydd ddisigl Gwynfor yn y Cymry yn parhau. Roedd gan Gwynfor ffydd lwyr yn ei gyd-wladwyr. Dywed rhai mai un o wendidau mawr Gwynfor oedd ei arfer i weld y gorau ym mhob person ar waethaf ei hanes a’i arferion. Tarddai’r arfer yma allan o’i ffydd Gristnogol, y gred fod pawb yn gallu newid (edifeirwch) yn haeddu maddeuant ac ail-gyfle. Ymestynodd y ffydd yma oedd ganddo yn y drefn ddwyfol a’r natur ddynol at gymdeithas a chenedl hefyd. Roedd Gwynfor, wedi’r cyfan, yn ddyn o ffydd ddisigl.

Erbyn 1979 Roedd Gwynfor yn Hydref ei oes. Gwelodd dwf y mudiad cenedlaethol a ieunectid Cymru yn ymuno mewn torfeydd i fynnu eu hawliau. Ymddengys fel bod Cymru yn rhan o chwyldro rhyngwaldol a welodd nifer o genhedloedd eraill yn cael eu rhyddhau o orthrwm ymerodraethol yn ystod y genhedlaeth flaenorol – India, Nigeria, Botswana, Kenya, gwledydd y Carib, gwledydd y Mor Tawel… pwy all feio Gwynfor am gredu mai dyma oedd moment fawr Cymru a’i fod yno yn rhan o’r digwyddiad ac yn cael y fraint o brofi’r wefr, a hynny trwy ddulliau cyfansoddiadol heddychlon? Gellir yn hawdd gredu mai dyma oedd ei dynged.

Meddyliwch y siom dybryd felly a gafodd ef a’i gyfoedion yn dilyn canlyniad refferendwm 1979. Nid yn unig efo’r canlyniad, ond hefod natur y canlyniad. Chwalfa. Crasfa. Siom yn y Blaid Lafur yn enwedig yn dilyn ymgyrch fradwrus a brwnt Neil Kinnock a’i debyg.

Does dim amheuaeth y byddai ysbryd Gwynfor wedi disgyn i fannau isel iawn yn dilyn hyn. A fyddai hyn wedi ei arwain i feddwl am hunan-laddiad, fel y’i gyhiddir gan rai? Na! Nid ymdrech ar hunan-laddiad oedd bwriad Gwynfor wrth ymprydio. Gallai’n rhwydd fod wedi rhoi i fyny a phenderfynu ei fod yn haeddu ymddeoliad tawel ar ôl bywyd o roi a gweithio dros yr achos. Ond nid gwleidydd ‘proffesiynol’ oedd, un a allai ymddeol heb boeni rhagor yn ei gylch. Un a gyflwynodd ei fywyd i gyd i achos cyfiawnder i Gymru ydoedd. Gwyddai Gwynfor yn iawn ei le – gwyddai mai un dyn ydoedd ac nad oedd yr un dyn yn fwy na’r achos cenedlaethol. Roedd yn ddyn hynod ddiymhongar ond pendant. Yr achos cenedlaethol oedd flaenaf yn ei feddwl. Serch hynny gwyddai a deallodd hefyd bwysigwrydd y statws a roddwyd iddo yn dilyn ei weithgareddau fel Llywydd y Blaid a’i Haelod Seneddol cyntaf ar hyd y degawdau, er nad oedd statws o’r fath erioed wedi gorwedd yn gyfforddus ar ei ysgwyddau.

Pe bai wedi rhoi fyny, pa neges fyddai hynny wedi ei roi? Beth fyddai hanes y mudiad a’r achos cenedlaethol wedyn? Na, nid ymdrech at hunanladdiad ydoedd ond gweithred bwriadol i adfer y mudiad a rhoi bywyd newydd i’r achos. Er gwaethaf ei siom dybryd, cynhaliodd ei ffydd ef, ac adferwyd ei ffydd yn ei gyd-wladwyr. Roedd yn rhaid cael ymgyrch symbolaidd ond pwysig. Efallai nad S4C oedd y mwyaf pwysig o achosion y dydd ond, fel gwladweinydd, gwelai y tu hwnt i’r foment honno – roedd ei olygon ef erioed wedi eu gosod ar gyfnod ymhell i’r dyfodol, un nad oedd y mwyafrif o bobl yn medru ei ddirnad na’i ddychmygu, yn wahanol i wleidyddion eraill oedd yn poeni am bethau mympwyol y dydd. Ystyriai sianel deledu fel rhan allweddol o’r darlun cynhwysfawr. Gwleidydd â gweledigaeth ydoedd.

I mi, yr oedd hyn yn allweddol i ail-ddeffro’r ymdeimlad cenedlaethol a fu’n cymaint cyfraniad i lwyddiant 1997 ac at yr egin Senedd sydd gennym heddiw. Roedd dangos i’w gyd-Gymru fod posib ennill brwydrau yn erbyn y rhai a fynnai ein dal i lawr yn symbolaidd a seicolegol bwysig.

Mae hyder yn magu hyder a llwyddiant yn creu llwyddiant medde nhw. Dyma a ddigwyddodd yn yr achos yma. Roedd yn rhaid i rywun wneud rhywbeth cyn i’r achos farw’n llwyr, ac, yn dilyn ei natur, penderfynodd Gwynfor nad oedd am eistedd yn ôl a disgwyl i eraill i wneud y gwaith ond y byddai’n mynd ati a chwistrellu bywyd newydd yn y Mudiad cenedlaethol, a thrwy wneud hynny yng nghenedl y Cymry.

A fyddai rhywun arall wedi medru gwneud hyn? Byddai. Dyn cyffredin oedd Gwynfor ond oedd ganddo genhadaeth anghyffredin iawn yn ei ddydd. Y wers i ni yw fod Gwynfor wedi dewis cymryd ei gyfrifoldeb o ddifri a gweithredu, dewis eraill yw peidio a gwneud hynny. Mae’r gallu yma ynddom ni i gyd i wneud rhywbeth rhyfeddol, y cwestiwn i ni 30 mlynedd yn ddiweddarach yw ydyn ni am gymryd ein cyfrifoldeb o ddifri, yntau a ydyn ni wedi ymgolli’n ormodol ym materion mympwyol y dydd? A oes gennym ni weledigaeth?

 

What price Independence?

One of the major arguments against an Independent Wales is that of ‘affordability’, with pro-Union supporters claiming that Wales could not afford independence.

 

Indeed if you are sad enough to read the comments section of papers like the Mail and Express (like i occasionally find myself doing!) you’ll see that it seems to be a commonly held belief that England subsidises everything in Wales. Dr Eurfyl ap Gwilym countered this argument brilliantly in his never to be forgotten tête-à-tête with Paxman on Newsnight.

 

However there are many within the Welsh national movement, many good friends of mine, who continue to argue that we cannot contemplate independence until we resolve what is called the ‘funding gap’, that is the gap between our income and expenditure.

 

Furthermore we are constantly told, by people in my own party as well as others, that Wales has become poorer over the years with our GDP falling.

 

I am very uncomfortable with these arguments.

 

Firstly the funding gap.

 

Do we seriously believe that Tom Clarke, Sean McDermott, Patrick Pearse, Joseph Plunkett, James Connolly and other leaders of the Easter Rising in Ireland discussed the planning of the Easter Rising then said “Hold on, how do we resolve the funding gap? Let’s wait a generation”, or more relevant maybe what if Vaclav Havel and the student movement in the then Czechoslovakia decided to hold off the velvet revolution for a generation because of the ‘funding gap’?

 

They didn’t because there was a fundamental principle at play, that of the right to self-determination (Copyright David Cameron vis-à-vis The Malvinas/Falkland Islands).

 

And in any case, what about the funding gap? It is said to be somewhere in the region of £6bn in Wales.

 

Firstly the simple way to resolve any funding gap is to increase income or lessen expenditure…or both. There is no doubt that an Independent Wales’ expenditure would be significantly less than our current proportion of UK expenditure. We wouldn’t have Trident for one thing. It is likely that our military spend would be significantly less overall. We wouldn’t be subsidising London either. Neither would we have to pay back for enormously expensive English PFI projects. Looking at the political make-up of Wales today we can confidently say that Wales wouldn’t have developed a PFI policy – an exorbitant credit card scheme. And what about the UK’s light touch regulation of the financial sector and the public bailout? Would we allow this? But the most important point is that an Independent Wales would develop policies suitable for the Welsh economic climate. This would mean Wales developing tax policies suitable for Wales. Who knows what this would result in! However we can be certain that it would not be any worse than the current economic mess simply because there is NO economic policy for Wales. All this would result in a completely different Welsh economy relative to the state.

 

It also means that we are setting the bar extraordinarily high for ourselves. If producing a budget surplus is the definition of a free and independent state, then where does that leave The United States of America? Turkey? France? Or even our beloved United Kingdom? All of which are heavily indebted. The UK is the single most indebted state in the world according to consultants Mkinsey. OK, much of this debt also includes personal debts, but who now has to pay back the debts of the banks? Us, of course. The simple truth is that the UK cannot afford to be ‘independent’, yet there is no doubting that it is (unless you’re a member of UKIP).

 

Wales, like all other countries, would borrow money. Yet we also seem to be hung up about the levels of any proposed borrowing compared to our income and expenditure. But this is not how debt is measured. A state’s debt is measured based on it’s GDP. But we don’t know what the Welsh GDP is. Those figures aren’t available. A £6bn debt as a percentage of Wales’ GDP could be anything – we simply don’t know. But we do know what the Welsh GDP is as a percentage of the UK average.

 

And this brings me on to my final point. We always seem to measure ourselves against England. We go on about Wales having become poorer because our GDP has fallen. But have we? Seriously?

 

Pre 1989 Wales GDP bounced around the 85% of the UK average.  However post 1989 we have seen a steady decline, and today we are hovering around the 70% mark. But I would content that while statistically we might have become poorer relative to the UK average in this time, in real terms we have become slightly wealthier. The reason that Wales’ GDP has fallen dramatically in this period is because London has become significantly wealthier. Welsh GDP average as a percentage of the UK happened after what is commonly called the Big Bang – the de-regulation of the city and the creation of the Masters of the Universe, which has seen the City Of London sucking in wealth not only from the rest of the UK but also from across the world.

 

If you take London out of the equation then it is more than likely that Wales’ GDP comparative to the rest of the UK would probably continue to bounce around the 85% mark if not higher – again we simply don’t know.

 

The effect of this however is to play Wales down, and to feed into the UK unionist narrative that Wales is lacking in entrepreneurial spirit and couldn’t go it alone.  

 

If we keep comparing ourselves with England (UK averages) then we will never raise our confidence and start convincing our people that Wales could become a successful independent nation state.

 

We need to start gathering accurate Welsh data.

 

Finally, regardless of Wales’ natural wealth which no one has properly valued (unlike, say, Scottish gas), our single most valuable resource is our people (as was argued by Leopold Kohr many decades ago) and no one can put price on the value of the people of Wales pulling together to build Wales up.

 

Powys Fadog – Pawn in a game of political vendetta

Some of you will have heard or read about the Welsh Government’s troubles in relation to the Powys Fadog community Project in Llangollen.

I’ve already written about it here, but things have obviously progressed since then.

The news story is about the Wales Audit’s report into the financial viability of the Welsh Government’s (formerly the WDA) decision to purchase the old River Lodge Hotel.

Most people will have heard the news items or read the articles relating to the report without any previous knowledge or understanding of the whole affair, and it’s fair to say that the report is critical of the Government’s decision to purchase the old River Lodge.

But this is only a very small part of the story. The sad thing is that there is so much more to it which deserves to be heard.

The Report had a narrow remit – it was to look at the financial viability of the purchase of the River Lodge. This might be OK for political purposes. But this is not about politics – it’s about people, a dream, and years of dedication to nurture and develop the dream, being dragged along by officials only for it to be dashed with years of what in any other circumstance would be wasted work, but because of some people’s dedication to the dream it is still alive against all odds.

What about the people involved? Where does this decision leave the individuals and the project? They are left in limbo.

Furthermore while the report had a narrow remit it has been reported as a ‘whole story’. Unfortunately this isn’t the case. The report picks out parts of a far big story, and puts them together for its own purposes. The story of Powys Fadog is therefore unfairly reported with information given to the public out of context.

There is no direct mention in the report, for instance, to political interference and the motives behind preventing the Powys Fadog Project. This is crucial to understanding what happened to Powys Fadog.

There is a far bigger story here which needs to be told. I haven’t got the time tonight, unfortunately, to go into details or elaborate any further, just to put on record my disappointment in the report and its handling of the individuals involved. I could gloat and point a finger at the failures of the Welsh Government. I might well do that some other time (!) the sad truth is that there are individuals involved who are being used as pawns in a political vendetta. That is the shame of Powys Fadog.

Parasitiad

Yndyw e’n gyd-ddigwyddiad rhyfedd sut mae’r bobl sy’n cwyno am wariant ein trethi yn aml iawn yw’r un rhai sy’n llafar eu cefnogaeth i’r frenhiniaeth?

Beth sydd yn fy ngwylltio yn fwy yw’r ffaith fod gymaint o son drosodd a thro ynghylch bywyd moethus gwleidyddion a sut mae’n nhw’n gwastraffu ein harian ni, y trethdalwyr, ar nwyddau moethus a bywyd bras. Pwy all anghofio’r stareon am iPods ac ati yn y Cynulliad neu straeon y Telegraph dair mlynedd yn ol ynghylch treiliau ASau? Roedd y cyfryngau a’r cyhoedd yn gynddeiriog ynghylch y ffaith fod pobl yn cael byw yn fras ar gefn eu ceiniogau prin hwy.

Blae mae’r cysondeb pan fo’n dod i’r teulu brenhinol?

Mae’r teulu brenhinol yn dod ag incwm i’r ‘wlad (wriaeth)’ medd rhai – er fod hyn yn ddadl amheus ac nad yw’r dystiolaeth yn profi hyn. Beth felly am wleidyddion?

Y frenhines yw pen y wladwriaeth. Hi yw’r pennaf esiampl. Hi sy’n gosod y safon i eraill ddilyn. Oes disgwyl felly i’r gwleidyddion wneud unrhywbeth yn wahanol i’r hyn wnaethon nhw? Os ydyw Beti a’i theulu’n cael byw yn fras ar y pwrs cyhoeddus pam ddim y gwleidyddion? Mae nhwythau, fel y teulu Brenhinol, yn gwasanaethu’r cyhoedd. Ond nid gwasanaethu’r cyhoedd mae’r teulu Brenhinol, ond yn hytrach cael bywyd bras ar drail miliynau o bobl difreintiedig – plant, mamau, tadau, brodyr, chwiorydd, yn marw oherwydd  yn syml nad ydyn nhw medru fforddio byw, a ninnau’r brolio ysblander teulu sy’n clodfori rhyfel a thrais.

Beth hefyd am y BBC? Os gofiwch chi roedd y cyfryngau a’r cyhoedd fel eu gilydd yn llafar iawn eu croch ynghylch gwariant cyhoeddus y BBC yn enwedig felly ar gyflogau rhai ou ser mwyaf. Ond ble mae’r un ddadl wrth drafod yr holl adnoddau sydd wedi cael eu neulltuo i hyrwyddo a darlledu’r jambori brenhinol? Dim.

Tra fo cymdeithas yn caniatau i rai gael breintiau ar drail eraill yna bydd llygredd cymdeithasol yn rhemp, a gallwn ni ddisgwyl i bethau megis treiliau ASau, ‘riot’s dinasoedd Lloegr ac ati barhau. Os am gymdeithas gwar, rhaid dechrau efo’r rhai hynny sy’n achosi anghyfartaledd.

wind-farms and Independence

Blwyddyn newydd dda!

Happy New Year!

Agree completely with strong leadership but what I feel Plaid are seriously lacking at the moment is community engagement, certainly here in mid-Wales. There are two burning issues in Montgomeryshire, windfarms (rejected by 80% of locals) and school reorganisation where excellent education is under threat of tinkering pointless reforms. I long for Plaid to stand with the ordinary people but they do not. On windfarms, the party of Wales sides with international companies against us locals and failure to recognise the success of bilingual education has left them out of the loop on education. The Tories are defending us and representing our interests: what we get from Plaid is lectures about our incorrect manner of thinking. Please help!

I read this comment by Myfanwy Alexander on the WalesHome blog, and felt I must respond, because it’s been playing around in my mind a lot recently.

This response is typical of the response of many who oppose the development of wind farms. I don’t want to use this blog posting as any sort of criticism of Myfanwy (I don’t know her) but instead to use the comment as a typical response that has developed over the last 18 months to Wind Farms.

This is Nimbyism dressed up as a concern for the local community and democracy.

Firstly I agree that if projects are to be developed in Wales then they should be for the benefit of the local community and any benefits should come back to Wales. I said as much when I was a Parliamentary candidate back in 2005 (recorded on Radio). That is a basic and sound principle. The idea is after all a crude form of cooperative organisation, something which I support and would like to see Wales leading the way in.

But this principle should go beyond the development of Wind Farms.

• It should also be true with Tescos/B&Q/Currys etc. These large companies and corporations build massive stores in Wales; hire people for low wages; are more than happy to take our money; but then in some cases pay next to no tax, and in most cases pay their taxes through their England based headquarters, resulting in less money circulating in the Welsh economy.
• The English Royal family owns hundreds of thousands of acres of Welsh land, ploughing money generated from them into their own pockets back home in London, denying the Welsh economy of badly needed income.
• The Army have stolen thousands of acres of Welsh land to develop their combat skills, denying Welsh farmers valuable agricultural lands (let alone the cultural consequences of stealing our land).
• A huge gas pipeline has been built through the heart of Wales taking gas from Pembrokeshire to the UK grid – with no benefits for Wales or the communities hosting the pipeline.

There are numerous other examples of Wales being exploited for its various resources, either natural or what is more often ignored our exploited man-power (cheap-labour) which does not seem to concern anti Wind Farm campaigners who are using this very argument as a reason against wind farm developments.

Furthermore this ‘principal’ of theirs seems to work only one way. The fact that they don’t get any personal benefit riles them. However it hasn’t crossed their minds that they are only too willing to use energy sourced from various impoverished and often war-torn communities across the globe which suffer unimaginable atrocities in order for us to be able to turn on our Plasma TV’s. We only have to think of the oil and gas sourced from the Middle East; central Asia; western Africa; Coal from Columbia and South Africa; Uranium from poor Aboriginal communities in Australia and southern Africa.

But it seems that it is OK for these communities to be denied their fair share and suffer from wars; mining disasters; various Uranium related cancers and other illnesses as long as we don’t have to suffer beastly wind turbines on our beautiful hills!

Let’s get this right. Yes local communities should benefit from being exploited for their resources, not just wind but EVERY resource – including its people, not just here but everywhere.

That’s why we want to see an Independent Wales, one which will properly regulate, organise and distribute the wealth it generates equally and fairly and push to ensure that every community across the globe gets the same fair deal.

Instead of criticising individual planning applications for wind farms they should argue for the devolution of powers on energy to Wales in its entirety coupled with allowing Wales to raise its own finances from business and people operating in Wales. They should also show the same concern for the low wages that their brothers and sisters earn in our communities – ruthlessly exploited in order for a few people to make a financial killing.

By getting this right our communities could sell surplus energy adding value to the Welsh economy and reduce our dependence on importing fossil fuel sourced from deprived, poor, war-torn communities and playing our part in fighting climate change.

Cymru: ‘pawn’ mewn gem wyddbwyll

Does gen i ddim amheuaeth y bydd penderfyniad Cameron i droi cefn ar y cytundeb Ewropeaidd i sicrhau disgyblaeth ariannol yn niwediol i Gymru.

Mae Cymru i raddau helaeth yn ddibynol ar fod yn rhan o’r prosiect Ewropeaidd er mwyn medru gwella ein safon byw a datblygu ein heconomi gynhenid. Os ydy Cymru’n yn mynd i gynhyrchu fwy o bethau yna y prif farchnad – yn ol y gwybodusion - yw’r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Os ydy’n cymunedau gwledig am barhau i fod yn gymunedau amaethyddol, gyda’r budd economiadd, cymdeithasol, a diwyllianol a ddaw yn sgil hynny yna mae’r drefn Taliadau Amaethyddol bresenol o fudd i ni, ac mae bwriad y Llywodraeth Geidawdol Lundeinig i ddod a’r drefn honno i ben am fod yn hynod niweidiol. Os ydym am barhau i gael buddsoddiadau i’n cymunedau tlotaf trwy gynlluniau cyd-gyfeirio yna rhaid wrth fod yn rhan ganolog o’r prosiect Ewropeaidd.

Mae’r egwyddor ganolog yma o wledydd a chymunedau llewyrchus yn cynorthwyo’r rhai llai llewyrchus yn un nobl, ac rwy’n awyddus i weld Cymru yn chwarae ei rhan ynddi.

Mae penderfyniad Cameron i wrthod Cynllun Disgyblaeth Ariannol Ewropeaidd felly am fod yn niweidiol i Gymru.

Ond er mwyn bod yn rhan o’r prosiect yma mae angen i ni gefnogi Cynlluniau Merkel a Sarkozy i orfodi trefn arianol llym ar wledydd sydd mewn trafferthion ariannol. Mae’r drefn newydd yma, o’i weithredu, am olygu gweithwyr sector cyhoeddus yn colli eu swyddi, taliadau cymdeithasol yn cael eu cwtogi ayb – yn debyg iawn i’r hyn sy’n digwydd ym Mhrydain ar y foment. Rhyw fath o Osborne-Lite, os liciwch chi.

Rwy felly yn cael fy hun mewn sefyllfa anodd. Rwy’n cefnogi’r egwyddor o Undeb Ewropeaidd gyda phawb yn cyd-ranu a chyd-weithio; rwy’n gweld budd yr UE i Gymru; ond fedra i ddim cefnogi cynllun sydd am fygwth swyddi a thaliadau cymdeithasol miliynnau o bobl ar draws Ewrop a hynny am resymau y tu hwnt i’w rheolaeth nhw.

A dyma’r broblem gyda chynllun Merkel a Sarkozy.

Mae’n siwr y bydd nifer ohonoch yn cydweld a’u dadl na ellir gadael i wledydd megis Groeg orwario a dibynu ar wledydd fel yr Almaen i’w digolledi drosodd a thro. Ac rwy’n derbyn hyn ac mae’r cynllun yn mynd i’r afael a hynny. Os yw gwlad megis Groeg yn dechrau gor-wario yna bydd gorfodaeth arnyn nhw i gwtogi.

Ond dyd’r Cynllun ddim yn mynd i’r afael a’r cwestiwn creiddiol o PAM fod gwledydd megis Groeg yn gor-wario a chael ei hun yn y fath bicil arianol?

Mae yna ddigon o gyfoeth yng Ngwlad Groeg. Y drafferth yw fod y mwyafrif o’r cyfoeth y mae Groeg wedi ei gynhyrchu wedi ei gorlanu gan ganrhan bach iawn o’r boblogaeth ac yn eistedd mewn banciau yng ngwledydd megis y Swistir. Ar ben hynny mae rheolaeth ariannol Groeg yn golygu ei fod yn hawdd i bobl osgoi talu cyfranau sylweddol o’u trethi. O ganlyniad does gan y Llywodraeth ddim o’r arian disgwyliedig i ariannu ei rhaglen lywodraethol. Nid yw’r miliwnyddion Groegaidd (nifer ohonynt yn byw hanner eu hamser ym Mhrydain) wedi dioddef nemor ddim yn ystod y trafferthion diweddar, trigolion gyffredin Groeg sydd wedi dioddef yn enbyd gyda, er enghraifft, treth eiddo yn unig yn cymryd dros hanner incwm pensiynwyr y wlad, a hynny ar eiddo bychan iawn.

Felly tra fo Cynlluniau Merkel a Sarkozy yn mynd i’r afael a’r symptomau, mae’n nhw’n osgoi yn llwyr yr achos.

Mae Ffrainc mewn peryg o ddisgyn i fewn i drafferthion economaidd dybryd dros y misoedd nesaf. Byddai cynllun o’r fath wrth gwrs o fudd gwleidyddol i Sarkozy. Gallai weithredu toriadau llym ar y pwrs cyhoeddus yno gan roi’r bau am hynny ar reolau ariannol Ewropeaidd newydd. Mae’n sicr am fod o fudd i Merkel yn wleidyddol gan olygu eu bod hi’n gallu dweud wrth eu hetholwyr llafar yn yr Almaen na fydd y wlad honno’n gorfod ariannu gwledydd eraill Ewropeaidd i’r un graddau byth eto.

Cynllun gwleidyddol yw hwn wedi cael ei greu er mwyn diwallu anghenion gwleidyddol prif wleidyddion Ewrop. Wrth gwrs does gan bobl Gwlad Groeg na’r Eidal ddim dweud yn y peth oherwydd nid gwleidyddion etholedig sydd yn trafod ar eu rhan ond yn hytrach ‘technocrats’ an-etholedig sydd yn edrych ar y peth yn nhermau elw a cholled nid impact cymdeithasol.

Mae Cameron wrth gwrs yn chwarae gem wleidyddol hefyd.

Y rhai hynny sy’n dioddef yn hyn oll, eto fyth, yw’r gwanaf, y tlotaf, a’r mwyaf methedig – gyda Chymru yn eu plith.

Os ga i ddyfynu’r Tystion:

“Dwi methu diodde’r twyll, dwi’n teimlo fel rhan mewn gem o wyddbwyll.”

Be active or lose democracy – in defence of activism

We are living in strange times, and to be honest I’m more than a little concerned.

Agreements are being made between technocrats and apparatchiks (whom haven’t been elected to any position but are there more often than not by virtue of connections and/or money) against the will of the people at large who are callously marginalised. Greece and Italy are the most obvious, and ironic, examples (ironic considering that Greece is the birth place of democracy). But it’s happening under our very noses here in Wales and the UK.

It is a toxic combination which, if we are not careful, could end in an uncontrollable violent eruption.

We need only glance at important episodes in history to see that when masses of people are routinely ignored and feel dispossessed one of two things tend to happen: (1) they find succour in extreme political organisations giving simplistic reasons for their problems (2) the Ruling Authority uses the popular uprising as an excuse to suspend the rule of law, or parts of it, and impose its will in a violent manner; or in fact a third scenario develops, which is a combination of both of the above.

It boils down to the fact that the west’s model of democracy is fundamentally corrupt and putrid.

I must admit that there are times when I have more than a little sympathy for genuine anarchists, which believe in collective responsibility and mutual respect (read Boff Whalley excellent article ‘In Defence Of Anarchy’ on the subject published in the Independent back in August).

I say this because while the theory of our Democracy aspires to a form of representative Government, we in fact live in a system resembling an aristocratic/plutocratic hybrid, with democratic symbolism thrown in for theatrical purposes.

But whose fault is this? Why is our attitude so benign towards a governing system that is so obviously unequal and bent on favouring the few?

There are many reasons, too long to list in fact! But one of the more important ones is that we let it happen. By our inaction and disinterest a vacuum has been created and we let our democratic politics – decision making on our behalf – go into the hands of vested interests, so that by now it is they that call the shots with direct links to decision makers or in some cases becoming decision makers themselves.

Someone once said that Politics is too important to be left in the hands of politicians. So too is democracy. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to become passive observers. Democracy at its best and most effective is participatory all year round, not just a once every four year event. A belief in democracy is not enough, that belief must be accompanied by action or it will disappear, because, as I mentioned above, democracy cannot exist in a vacuum. It is not a stand-alone entity that can exist separate from the community which it is meant to serve. We all have a responsibility to maintain it, after all our ancestors fought hard to establish it in the first place. If it is not maintained; if we start to lose interest and let others shoulder the immense responsibility of securing the democratic rights of us all; then it will eventually rot, and disappear.

Each time I go around canvassing I get complaints that people only see politicians every time there’s an election on. This is supposed to be a criticism of the politician, but it is an equally damning criticism of the electorate and the hands off approach to politics that we have allowed to develop. This light touch approach to politics and our democratic processes has allowed a cancer to grow and eat into our political and democratic systems.

The capitalist system, if left unchecked, will endeavour to eat away at these social structures which we have created in an attempt to develop a more equal society. Left to its own devices capitalism will bring out the worst in human nature – greed, selfishness, and gluttony. Democracy is one of our most effective tools against these excesses.

What we are seeing today is the result of years of hands-off, disinterest in our political and democratic processes.

That’s why we must have a more active approach to politics and be willing to participate in our democratic processes as often as possible. This doesn’t mean that we should be expected to debate tedious constitutional arrangements, or other such things considered boring that’s associated with politics. Politics is about much more than this. People camping outside St Pauls Cathedral in London; striking for their pensions at the end of this month; working voluntarily for NGOs and new campaigning organisations such as 38 Degrees and Avaaz are doing much more to rescue our political and democratic processes than any politician has done in a hundred years. By drawing our attention to social injustices and demanding that things change these activists are bringing these vitally important issues to our attention, and ensuring that politicians are answerable for their actions.

Activism is the lifeblood of democracy – it is the living, breathing expression of participatory democracy.

By denying people the right to protest and campaign, we are turning our backs on democracy.

The cry oft heard against activists is ‘haven’t they got anything better to do?’ They might well have, but the real question is ‘have they got anything more important to do?’, and the answer to that is no.

Brian Haw set the example for us to follow.

Plaid Cymru Communications – Your Opinion

It seems that every Tom, Dick and Harry has an opinion about what has gone wrong and, occasionally, right with Plaid Cymru over the last few years.

The fact that there’s been so much discussion about the direction of the party and the party’s future outside of the party itself suggests to me that there are many people out there who have a great deal of good will towards Plaid Cymru and wish the party to succeed, or at least succeed to some degree.

To this end I was hoping that you might be willing to share a few minutes of your time. I’m looking into Plaid Cymru’s various communication methods: mass media (TV, Radio, Newspapers); internal communications; modern technology (blogs, social networking, websites etc); word of mouth; and any and every other kind of communication by or about Plaid Cymru.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would be willing to share your opinion, knowledge, skills with me about Plaid Cymru’s failings/success or good practice that we could adopt by commenting on this posting below or sending any contribution to me mabonapgwynfor@gmail.com

Thank you very much.

Cyfathrebu Plaid Cymru – eich barn

Mae’n ymddangos fel fod gan bawb farn ynghylch beth sydd wedi mynd o’i le ac, yn achlysurol, beth sydd wedi mynd yn iawn gyda Plaid Cymru dros y blynyddoedd diwethaf.

Mae’r ffaith fod gymaint o drafod wedi bod ar bwnc cyfeiriad a dyfodol y Blaid yn awgrymu i mi fod nifer fawr o bobl yn poeni amdan y Blaid a hynny am eu bont, os nad yn uniongyrchol, yna yn anuniongyrchol yn cefnogi’r Blaid ac yn awyddus i’w gweld hi’n llwyddo – neu rhyw fesur o lwyddiant oleiaf.

Yn hynny o beth tybed a fyddech gystal a rhoi munud o’ch amser i mi. Rwy’n edrych i fewn i ddulliau cyfathrebu y Blaid: cyfryngau torfol (papurau newydd, radio, teledu); mewnol; technoleg fodern (rhwydweithio cymdeithasol, blogiau, gwefannau etc); ar lafar (geirda etc) ac unrhyw math arall o gyfathrebu gan neu am y Blaid.

Byswn i wrth fy modd pebai chi’n gallu rhoi eich barn, awgrymiadau ac engrheifftiau o arfer da yr ydych yn credu y gallai fod o fudd i Blaid Cymru trwy wneud sylwad isod neu trwy fy e-bostio: mabonapgwynfor@gmail.com

Diolch o galon.

Boo Hoo! London is ignoring us!

I was listening to Radio 4’s Feedback in the car on my way home last night, when the presenter referred to a number of complaints the programme had received about BBC news’ coverage of the Welsh Rugby Team’s win in the World Cup Quarter Final against Ireland.

The gist of it was that BBC news output gave prominence to England’s Quarter Final loss, with scarcely a reference to Wales.

The BBC’s response was that they felt that they “got the balance about right across the radio network”.

For those of you on Twitter you would have seen the same sort of response from people across Wales tweeting that the Welsh win was not getting due prominence. Amongst the complainants were politicians from various British Unionist Parties.

Now while I agree with the general complaint, it should not come as any surprise to us. Why is it that when it comes to sport, or more specifically rugby, people who are happy with the British Establishment and being governed by London complain bitterly that the Welsh rugby team doesn’t get enough attention, but when it comes to real news – news that affect our day-to-day lives they are happy to see Wales ignored and marginalised?

The BBC is a British wide London centric organisation. In such a large organisation they allocate resources according to audience figures. The same is true of every news and London based media organisation. In this respect the BBC were absolutely right to ‘ignore’ the Welsh win.

In simple numbers Wales is only a population of 3million. There are twice as many people living in London alone. Why would they want to give any attention to such an insignificant group of people on the margins when the vast majority of their audience are not even Welsh?

After all Wales has her own ‘regional’ output which would have given the game due prominence.

If we are happy to see Wales as a marginalised part of a greater England (also known as Britain) then we shouldn’t complain that her sports teams aren’t getting any media coverage either.

Let’s stop complaining that London isn’t giving us the attention we feel we deserve and instead let’s put a positive argument forward about why Wales should get her own publicly funded Broadcasting Body.

Why do we crave the attention of London all of the time? Let London do her own thing and let’s focus our attention, energy, and resurces on Wales.

It’s not good enough for these Labour politicians to complain that Wales is ignored by London – do something about it!

One final thought – remember that it is this London centric media organisation that will also take charge of S4C before long. Do you really think that our only national TV station is safe in the hands of such an organisation?