Power Generating Windmills

BBC TV Wales and other broadcasters recently trumpeted that a new report showed that more wind-powered generators [known as wind turbines to the marketing men and scientifically backward] would bring more jobs and income into Wales. These wind-powered generators only produce power intermittently, and the latest models, 425 feet high, can be seen from 30 miles away. They need access roads, power from conventional sources, sub-stations and pylons to connect and balance with any electricity grid, and form wind power stations, not wind farms otherwise we would have coal farms, nuclear farms, gas farms and the like.

Wales is by far one of the poorest regions of the EU, and already has five times the density of wind-generated intermittent power generators as its larger neighbour England. It may be that the wind stops at Offa’s Dyke, because English pressure groups have succeeded in preventing their spread across that country. However, in Cymru it is different. Plaid Cymru has become known as Plaid Gwynt, the Party of Wind, which applies to its speeches as well as its backing for wind energy. Labour controls Wales under Arglwydd Carwyn of Millbank, and is itself, as always, controlled by Labour HQ in London, which is pro-wind energy. Its leader, the Croatian-Polish parented Ed Miliband, tells us that it is ‘morally inexcusable’ to oppose wind energy.

Wales has a population of just 3 million, and its only viable industry is tourism which is being wrecked by these wind follies, along with the lives of those who live near them. World population is growing by 3 million a week (i.e. the population of Wales!), and a new and dirty coal-fired power station is also coming on-line every single week across the world. For Wales to be littered with even more inefficient, ineffective wind follies is pointless, when we consider the global picture. Forget the mantra of man-made global warming – climate has always been changing, owing primarily to Milankovic Wobbles, as I outlined in my book Breverton’s Encyclopaedia of Inventions. The Romans had vineyards in Wales and there was not then a fuss about carbon emissions. They held fairs on the frozen Thames in the seventeenth century. A few years back, scientists told us that we would fry because of the gap in the ozone layer, while others said we were heading for a new Ice Age. Forget the cynical manipulation of facts and the fact that scientists now say what their paymasters wish them to say.

The point is, that whatever Wales does, it cannot affect anything upon an international scale. It is a tiny country, thirty miles across its waist, with hardly any industry or carbon emissions, smaller than New Jersey. It would be the 48th largest US state, just ahead of Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Washington DC. The land area of the USA is 375 times that of Wales, and its population over 100 times as much. The Wales Assembly Government wishes to ‘lead the world’ in green policies, rather than develop an economically viable future for the country. Welsh government planning guidance sets an absurd goal to generate 2,000 megawatts of electricity from onshore wind turbines by 2025, with most of it available by 2020.

However, Wales only uses 2000MW of electrical energy in total each year. Wales already produces over 6000MW of such energy, with 2/3 of it going via huge pylons to England. More conventional power stations are planned, which might effectively provide Wales with over five times the power it requires, nearly all going to England.

Wales is obviously far more than self-sufficient in energy, and if its government wishes to rely totally upon renewable energy, then the country will grind to a halt when the wind speed is too high or low. Not one of its conventional sources of energy can be closed down as they will be supplying England, and also Wales when the wind follies do not spin – so where is the green energy dividend in building more wind follies?

Carwyn Jones, First Minister of Wales, was the person responsible for surreptitiously signing off the infamous Technical Advice Note 8 (TAN8). This effectively gave Forestry Commission land (which belongs to the Welsh people and covers large tracts of the most beautiful parts of Wales) over to wind power station developers. People’s protests are over-run by planning inspectors to fulfil the pledge to green energy, and peat bogs, archaeological remains and spectacular vistas are being ruined. If the Welsh Government is to reach its target, it could have fifty times the density of wind energy generators of England, and one will be able to see and hear a wind folly from any hill in the country. It is madness of the first order when politicians will not admit that they are wrong.

The Welsh Energy Minister is a former solicitor John Griffiths, who has loudly trumpeted the value of this ‘independent’ piece of research, showing that Wales will get 2,000 more jobs and a huge income from meeting its green energy target. This Cardiff Business School-Regeneris report upon renewable energy was sponsored by the Wales Assembly Government and Renewables UK, and therefore has no assessment of cost-benefit analysis, being merely a wish list of the propaganda that its sponsors wish to promulgate. It served its purpose – all media in Wales duly reported that more wind follies are good for the country. Deeply flawed, it is abysmal that a university research department has colluded in its publication. Cardiff University should immediately either repudiate it, or admit that it was paid for and virtually worthless.

I live near a wind power station, Alltwalis, and there have been NO jobs created there. Someone might come along now and again and pick up the chopped up birds and bats, but usually foxes and buzzards do that for them. There are more poposed all over Wales, including on the battlefield of Hyddgen, where Glyndwr’s War of Independence flared into life. Each wind generator requires a 1000 ton slab of concrete, which will cause flooding problems, and the machines themselves are not recyclable. We know that when the massive operating grants are due to end, they will be sold to shadow companies which quickly go into liquidation and will not be able to restore the land. The wind generators themselves will be left to rot in the landscape like the gibbets of old. Wales will be defaced forever.

The report’s only sponsors are the following, ALL windpower renewable companies and mainly foreign-owned:
1. Amegni Renewables is owned by a family of local landowners from Carno, near Llandinam. They allowed Carno 1 & 2 wind power stations to be built on their land (on one of the largest blanket bogs in Wales and cutting through a Roman road). The son built the 3rd windfarm extending the Carno disgrace towards Llanbrynmair, with 12 Wind energy generators reputedly raking in £3million a year. He has another application pending. The village of Carno, despite all this community benefit and income going to a few of the indigenous locals has lost its main employer, and the school is under threat of closure;
2. Pennant Walters is a renewable energy company based in Hirwaun which has built up a landbank of 25,000 acres across Wales to develop windfarms;
3. Renewables UK Cymru is part of the pro-wind lobbying body Renewables UK, representing all the UK and foreign companies involved;
4. RES is an international renewables company;
5. RWE npower renewables;
6. Scottish Power renewables;
7. Tegni Cymru Cyf – a German-Welsh wind power developer;
8. Vattenfall – one of the biggest wind power developers, hit by scandal in the past;
9. Welsh Government – demonically in favour of renewables; and
10. West Coast Energy – wind power developer.

It is almost impossible to get anything published critical of Welsh problems in Welsh media, as they need advertising incomes from councils and government. Carmarthenshire County Council recently withdrew advertising from the South Wales Guardian after some criticism, almost forcing it to close. My new book The Welsh: The Biography criticised the current situation in Wales, but could not be published by Welsh publishers for fear of losing their grants, and similarly has not been reviewed by Welsh newspapers and magazines except possibly for Cambria, Yr Enfys and Golwg. The editor at its English publisher wondered by Welsh people put up with poor government and said that Welsh, i.e. British, history should be taught in English schools. I replied that it is not even taught in Welsh schools.

Is it surprising that the report is in favour of more wind energy? Is it independent? Is it a rigorous piece of research? Does it have any use at all, except to scientifically illiterate politicians trying to justify a scandalous waste of public funds? Why does it take a 66-year-old former businessman to criticise its bias and the non-existent economic policies of Wales, rather than the media, politicans and academics? As a former management consultant, I would have resigned rather than have submitted such a biased piece of research.

gan Terry Breverton

 

Dear Editor

Betrayal

I am not at all surprised that John Griffiths, the laughably Welsh Government, Environment Minister, has rejected three out of four recommendations to minimise the disgraceful impact wind generators have on folk living in close proximity to these worthless behemoths. One wonders what qualifications Mr Griffiths has regarding environmental issues, and indeed, wind and power technology? From his pronouncements I would suggest he does not know his Ohm from his Amp, otherwise he would recognise the folly of wind farms, their impact on the environment, and act accordingly.

Additionally, I wonder if Mr Griffiths understands the word, ‘Democracy’ for what a betrayal to over a 1000 name petition from the people of Carmarthenshire, bearing in mind it was the good folk of Carmarthenshire that swung the devolution vote to a ‘YES’!

A cynic might observe, “Be careful what you wish (vote) for.”

A letter from Dave Haskell of Boncath to Cambria.

 
libor slots

You despair about the banks. Another Big Fat Worm found in the can of worms that is casino banking.

Casino banking

 
Letter from America

Dear Cambria,
For anyone interested in a brightfuture for Wales, the last year has been depressing. I was truly appalled at the stories of the mismanagementat the University of Wales, the WJEC exam board and the continuing news about the desperately bad performance of the Welsh economy.
I have also just read a fine article by former Plaid Cymru MP, Adam Price about the woeful state of the Welsh economy. Wales is now compared to Portugal as the poorest region in the EU. “The Welsh economy is now well into its third Lost Decade”, said Mr. Price.
Well who can we blame for this dire mess? Yes, it is easy to haul out the usual suspects, mostly English, but I think we need to look closer to home. We are familiar with the so-called Arab Spring and I wonder if Wales needs its own “political spring”. Wales has been badly led for a long time and the culprits are there sitting in comfort in Cardiff Bay and in the council chambers around the land. They are in the Registry in Cathays Park and in the offices of the WJEC exam board in Cardiff and they need to be roundly criticized for their incompetence and stupidity and then replaced.
Wales is on the wrong track in so many ways and the solution lies with its people, the voters, to demand better leadership and to subject that leadership to the bright light of critical examination. It’s not enough to have an economic strategy that seemingly consists of only two principle components; excellence in EU grant writing and attracting the branch factories of multinationals.
Enough of the tired old political rhetoric and well-worn tactic of walking backwards into the future! Wales needs fresh ideas, fresh strategies and some fresh new leaders who are willing to be challenged daily on their ideas and actions. More importantly it needs a reinvigorated and challenging electorate that demands excellence and is not prepared to accept mediocrity any longer. How can the country seriously consider greater independence and selfgovernment when there is not even any widespread discussion about the current disastrous course?
Sadly getting the Welsh electorate and the Welsh media to focus on this important issue will be difficult. On the 13th of April my hopes were raised when I saw the following headline on the BBC website; “Swansea must end slump—“. Sadly
the article was about football. What was that expression about something being the opiate of the masses?

Robert Heming, Houston.

Published in Cambria Summer 2012

 

 
oggy

It’s the issue all of us who support independence want to sidestep, yet equally confront head-on. It’s summed up in one simple question – Can Wales afford independence?

When analysing the issue, there are at least two questions:
1. Can Wales support itself based on its tax income?
2. Could current public spending levels be maintained post-independence?

The answer to the first question is yes. Every independent nation is run on its own tax income, macroeconomic and monetary policy, combined with public borrowing. Welsh tax revenues were estimated to be £19.3billion in 2007, a figure that’s probably higher now.
An independent Wales would also be able to borrow like any other nation. Public borrowing is hardly in vogue at the moment, but if we want a master class in using the national credit card, we needn’t look further than the UK. For 2012-13 the UK has a borrowing target of £120billion – adding to the £1trillion public debt. In simplest terms, every year the UK borrows the equivalent of over two and a half times the entire Welsh economy.
The second question is more commonly associated with the “affordability” argument. It’s also a far more complicated one to answer.
Estimates for the difference between tax revenue and public spending – the Welsh “national deficit” – vary. The Holtham Commission found that in 2007-08, £6billion more was spent in Wales than raised in taxes. The figure has been quoted at £9billion, and even as high as £16billion by Peter Hain in 2011. That’s an unacceptable margin for error in a place that prides itself on record keeping. But where does this “national deficit” actually go? If we take the UK’s borrowing figures at face value, some £6billion of it is borrowed money. There are also proportional shares of spending on UK-wide areas like defence, welfare and foreign affairs. Does this spending produce tangible benefits for Wales?
Let’s look at defence spending.
For 2011-12, £1.68billion will be spent, proportionally, on Wales’s behalf. That’s more than the Welsh government’s annual budget for rural affairs, business & enterprise, the environment, housing, heritage and regeneration combined, or 86% of the Welsh government’s education & skills budget. If Wales had a defence budget similar to the Republic of Ireland for example (0.7% of GDP), it would be around £300million.
Unless Welsh leaders have ambitions of playing Blofeld, it’s not a great leap of logic to suggest that Wales could spend significantly less on defence, as an independent nation, than the UK currently spends on our behalf. That’s £1.38billion of national deficit wiped out.
The UK currently maintains 240 or so diplomatic missions. The “Welsh proportion” of Foreign Office and International Development spending is approximately £490million – at least one and a third times the Welsh government’s business & enterprise budget. That figure includes spending on BBC World Service (until 2014) and the British Council. Would Wales need to maintain diplomatic missions in Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan and the Solomon Islands?
Wales no doubt benefits from bodies such as UK Trade & Investment, but the most successful foreign-oriented brand Wales has had in a generation was our own Welsh Development Agency. Could a streamlined Welsh diplomatic service, with a joined-up approach to foreign investment and foreign aid, not only significantly boost Wales’s international profile – out from under the shadow of the Union Flag – but cost less than £490million? Perhaps £200million? Then there’s the possible overestimates of public spending in Wales. In 2009-10, StatsWales listed out turn policing expenditure as £671million, compared to Treasury figures of £762million – a difference of £91million. The difference for fire services was £45million. Despite only having five prisons, two of them low-security, the Welsh prisons budget is listed as £228million – roughly £78,000 for every prison space in Wales, more than twice the average £37,000 cost in 2010. On paper, this looks like a £250million overestimate in only a few parts of a single UK government department – very significant if you’re dealing with a £6billion deficit. Can similar “overestimates” be found elsewhere?
According to official data, in 2010-11 some £8.8billion was spent in Wales across 20 different benefits, including state pensions, and approximately £1.34billion on tax credits. Due to higher proportions of pensioners and disabled people, Wales is on the front lines of change. Major reforms, such as the introduction of the Universal Credit, are due in the coming years. A Welsh share of the £10billion welfare cuts by 2016 will be £125million per year, perhaps higher.
We must also factor in the relative poverty line. At 60% of median income, it’s a UK-wide measure, distorted, like economic data, by London and southern England. As Welsh median income is lower than the UK, levels of relative poverty in Wales at a national level, are likely to be lower too.
Independence could reduce levels of relative poverty instantaneously – statistically at least.
There’s also an opportunity to build a new welfare state from the ground up. Could a smaller Welsh state reduce administration costs?
Could Wales underpin welfare with dividends from natural resources, sovereign wealth funds or state-run enterprises? Could friendly societies, or cooperative welfare, make a return? A Welsh welfare state should still ensure work pays and is likely to be less generous in financial terms. However there could be a new ethos based on communitarian values – seeing benefits recipients as people who need a “leg up”, instead of being browbeaten as scroungers.
How much of the : £2.2billion Border Agency budget, £2.5billion Cabinet Office budget, £3billion Energy & Climate Change budget, £4.1billion Treasury budget – is being “spent on Wales”? There’s at least £595million of “national deficit” in there somewhere.
It’s important to remember subsidy sometimes cuts both ways. Anything flagged as a “UK” or “England and Wales” project, will have a proportional Welsh contribution. These could include: Crossrail – £115million (via Network Rail), new aircraft carriers – £350million, London Olympics – at least £460million (almost the cost of the main stadium), Iraq and Afghanistan wars – £1billion, High Speed 2 – £1.9billion, Trident replacement – potentially £1.25billion.
In 2010, it was revealed that the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy (scrapped this year) resulted in Welsh local authorities paying back up to £2billion of surplus rent money to the Treasury since the scheme was established.
More recently, it was revealed that Welsh taxpayers could be paying £100million towards reductions in water bills for south west England and an upgrade to London’s sewerage system.
In most cases, Wales won’t see any extra “Barnett consequential” from this spending, but it’ll be counted as part of the national deficit all the same. That’s a lot of empty, mostly borrowed money, spent on Wales’s behalf. Is it any wonder how public spending in Wales keeps rising, but there seems to be very little to show for it?
Some fiscal levers could be on the way to Wales, dependant on the Silk Commission’s findings. It’s a sensible development. We won’t know what our AM’s are made of until they take decisions that directly affect personal or business incomes. But are Welsh economic problems too big to be solved by mere tinkering? Independence brings with it unequivocal responsibility.
The wider macroeconomic powers over taxation and fiscal policy would have a greater impact on the Welsh economy than anything devolution or federalism can deliver or promise. It’s something every single nation uses to its advantage, but something Wales shies away from.
Adam Price and Ben Levinger’s The Flotilla Effect highlighted four core advantages small nations possess: increased openness to trade, greater social cohesion, adaptability and big government’s acting as a stabiliser. In the 12 months to June 2011, Wales had a trade surplus of £5.72billion. On paper, Wales would be pushing into the top ten net-exporters of the EU. Would independence enable Wales to exploit this further? Can we shape Welsh economic policy to closely match our exporter role, as opposed to being a bit part of the UK’s global financial service machine?
The value of exports rose dramatically over the period (+31.4%) because of a statistical change. Exports were counted from the place they were produced, not where the company producing them was head-quartered. Is a significant chunk of our wealth actually accounted as having come from elsewhere? If that’s true, could Welsh business taxes or VAT revenues rise by a similar amount? We simply don’t know. The Scottish Government produces the “Government Expenditure and Revenues Scotland” (GERS) report which analyses revenues and expenditure. Wales has nothing similar, other than political anoraks armed with calculators and too much time on their hands.
If it is true, it could have a big impact on the affordability argument – increasing tax revenues and chipping away at the national deficit, which has fallen by at least £2billion since the start of this article – one third of the way to a balanced budget, notionally. If an amateur like me can do it, imagine what an economist, or a UK government hellbent on swingeing cuts could do?
Employment law, competition law, industrial relations, consumer protection, the tax code, VAT, monetary policy, research councils, international trade, financial regulation – all things that could be reformed for the better in Wales, and powerful tools only available to us via independence.
I accept that independence is, at present, a minority position. For many, the “I-word” nauseates. If Wales can’t afford anything, it’s to let cynicism cloud the potential for a economy that’s allowed to work to its strengths, taxed fairly, and possesses every single tool necessary to unleash Welsh enterprise. To enable this, we’ll need to make big decisions on the constitutional direction of Wales, and its economic future. Do we want to tinker, or do we want to take control?

Owen Donovan, a life scientist from Bridgend, blogs regularly on Welsh affairs, nationalism and Welsh independence at Oggy Bloggy Ogwr.

Published in Cambria Magazine Summer 2012

 
donkeys

There are tens of millions of funds for economic development and business support that are available but which do not seem to be channelled through to the Welsh economy – and it doesn’t appear to be the WG’s fault! Apparantly, they are ‘bending over backward’ to do their bit. The days of ‘gold-plating’ are over it is claimed and, in fairness, there is some evidence for this.

Alot of this EU Convergance and UK grant finance is still not reaching the ‘real’ Welsh economy and private sector in spite of almost desperate measures such as:

  • huge reductions in the time taken for approval of grant applications (down in most cases to less than 2 weeks)
  • huge reductions in paperwork and red tape (which is minimal now)
  • marketing campaigns to raise awareness of their existance (they are even advertising on facebook (see graphic) for heaven’s sake!)
  • provision of support and hand holding to compose business plans and submit applications at local and regional levels
  • huge relaxation of  eligibility and even sectoral criteria (see Tourism Development)

So what are the problems? Well, the main obstacles appear to be that -

  • Banks will not provide match funding for even the best and most viable projects. This means that projects may be fully approved but cannot proceed because, in the current climate, match funding cannot be raised by borrowing. Banks are using the Catch 22 that a business has to be ‘viable’ before it will lend and the very act of asking for match funding means that the business must be ‘non-viable’ – therefore they won’t lend. Brilliant!
  • Even after approval has been given, many projects, small and large, are failing to take or spend the money leaving large amounts of allocated funds in limbo.
  • “You can take a horse to water but not make it drink” syndrome in Welsh private sector. Once burned twice shy Welsh businesses are not bothering to apply in the first place citing reasons such ‘ it’s not worth the candle’ or ‘too much hassle’ or ‘too much planning’. Any reason or excuse is given because there is a perception that getting a grant is a two-edged sword, a poisoned chalice or any other well-worn cliché you care to come up with . The belief and trust has gone completely. Even start-ups by kiddies with no experience are wary as hell. All those expressions of interest and application forms just go straight in the bin.
  • Service providers and contractors appear to be doubling or even trebling their prices if it is suspected that a grant has been applied for – therefore it’s not going to save the business any money – in fact it just causes delay, paperwork and grief with the distinct probability that a large investment of time and effort could go down the drain if the project is rejected or the bid for a tender fails. This is endemic to the current public sector procurement system. Basically, many private sector businesses just ‘don’t want to know’ when it comes to dealing with WG, Finance Wales, or County Council and these are the only channels through which these huge funds can be dispersed.

Therefore, should the blame really be laid at the door of private sector business  in Wales which has rightly or wrongly been accused of  being ‘non-entrepreneurial’ and lacking in aspiration!! (Gasp!)? Whatever the reasons, it appears that very significant amounts of  funding may be going to waste (and will go back to source). If this were Ireland, France, Greece or any other EU country this money would have disappeared in a flash. If Wales has any aspiration at all to be self governing and in charge of its own economic destiny then surely we need to be smarter and quicker to get these funds under the mattress before the Euro collapses and this money is clawed back to give to the ‘bankers’ in interest payments. N’est pas?

 

 

Here’s the story. Imagine that you are a long established Welsh supplier of a product/service in a global market and you found out that a publicly funded project specifically designed to support Welsh business had chosen  to use an American product which is less feature rich and a direct competitor, how would you feel?

Pissed off that’s how you or I would feel. There is a principal at stake here.

Politicians of every hue have made many statements about ‘localism’ and how they are bending over backwards to encourage procurement by local authorities and public sector agencies to be done locally. However, it seems that when it comes to the crunch this principal is secondary to many other overriding considerations.

The guilty party in this small, but illustrative, story is Software Alliance Wales (SAW) who are allegedly funded to the tune of £8 million of EU and Welsh Government funds to deliver training (in Information Technology/software development) to businesses in so-called convergence areas of Wales. A noble and useful project no doubt although you can probably count on the fingers of two hands the number of businesses in this area that are capable of receiving or benefiting from this expensive ‘training’ provided by academics (who may be well behind the curve of software development). £8 million to run a few courses for a couple of dozen people and put on some events? It begs a question.

Anyway to continue, the SAW (no, it is not a computer game featuring vampires – see http://softwarealliancewales.com/) have chosen to procure for their backend office a piece of US software called MailChimp.  This software is used for bulk emailing of newsletters. It is one of very many products in a crowded and highly competitive market. The other player in this sad story is MarketMailer, a long established Welsh software product by a Welsh company located in Cardigan in the very ‘Convergence area’ that is supposed to be being assisted (sic) and with a large client base of Welsh and UK businesses and organisations (including several politicians!). In any head to head, technical or financial analysis/evaluation, MarketMailer stacks up equal and better in many respects than MailChimp. SAW maintain that this kind of evaluation was done and that MarketMailer was considered. However, the records show that no (free) trial of MarketMailer was done nor has there been any correspondence, enquiry or request for information or invitation to tender. In a telephone conversation with the Project Manager of SAW it was admitted that the clinching argument in favour of MailChimp was that a member of staff had prior experience in its use and that it would be too expensive in time to retrain this staff member in the use of another product (even though the skills needed to operate both products are identical).

In email correspondence, the first line of defence by SAW is that they are constrained by regulations presumably against ‘protectionism’ .

“Although we’re an EU funded project, we work within the stringent procurement regulations of both Swansea University and the Welsh European Funding Office, and are therefore not in a postition (their spelling mistake) to show preferential treatment to companies based in Wales.  We do however support businesses in the Convergence areas of Wales by offering innovative training solutions and other services.”

This protectionism defence won’t wash simply because MarketMailer just wishes to be considered on a level playing field in a proper technical head to head evaluation, not because it happens to be a Welsh product. Chware teg.

Similarly, further statements (excuses) are not acceptable:

“We are a very small team and needed an email solution that best suited our needs. We did look at a range of solutions available (no evidence of this) as I mentioned before, but the online resources available from MailChimp together with their willingness to incorporate Welsh language, and the fact that we have in house expertise made this the best option for us.  We also needed the chosen email solution to fully intergrate (their spelling mistake) with our CRM, and as our database solution was already in place we needed something that would simply and effectively work with it. We were able to do this with MailChimp.”

MarketMailer does all that MailChimp does and, moreover, it is specifically designed to accommodate the Welsh language for bilingual newsletters. The integration with their CRM is by import and export of csv files a trivial task that is also handled simply and automatically by MarketMailer.

The most galling thing about this is that MarketMailer sponsors and supports many many local organisations and charities free of charge and would have been perfectly amenable to assist SAW by providing their services pro bono.  But no, it seems that this continuation of the economically damaging procurement policies of ‘anywhere but Wales’ (whose classic exemplar is the VisitWales website) is set to continue.

I don’t wish to belittle SAW and what they are trying to do (although it would be nice to know why the project is costing nearly twice the amount of money that the Opportunity Wales Project had to run a four year project in Objective One areas more directly supporting all sector Welsh businesses).  However, I would like to think that they will work harder next time to ensure that if a service or solution exists locally they should use it. Also, even if a solution or service doesn’t exist locally or doesn’t exactly match their specifications they should put resources into creating it locally. They should NOT be buying it in from a direct foreign national competitor.

Finally, I have concentrated on a specific documented case here but my concern is applicable across all Public Sector procurement policy. Every other country in the world interprets the procurement rules and regulations to suit their local circumstances and to ‘look after their own.’ In Wales, we apparently choose not to do this. In fact, in some well known cases the…  ‘anywhere but Wales’ policy has prevailed . This is self flagellation and the road to economic suicide.

 gan Chris Jones

 
donkeys

Siôn Jobbins argues that small nations can and do survive economically.

‘An independent Wales would not be economically viable.’ Funny, were Wales given a penny every time somebody said that, then Wales would certainly pay its way!
Yet this ‘can’t afford independence’ is a common refrain by commentators and politicians alike, and is currently used with great gusto as an argument against Scottish independence. But a quick glance through the articles, editorials and letters pages of the past make it clear that Wales and Scotland haven’t been the only European countries ‘which can’t afford independence’.
Malta was one example. An editorial in The Times on 7 January 1959 noted gravely: ‘Malta cannot live on its own … the island could pay for only one-fifth of her food and essential imports; well over a quarter of the present labour force would be out of work and the economy of the country would collapse without British Treasury subventions. Talk of full independence for Malta is therefore hopelessly impractical.’
The Times published a letter on January 21st, 1964 by Joseph Agius of ‘Ta’ Xbiex’ who feared ‘… the folly of giving independence [to Malta] when we are not economically prepared for it.’
Yet Malta gained independence on September 21st, 1964: essentially a city state on a barren rock; which – from a British point of view – was no more than a very large dock. By 2009 its GDP – at $23,800 per capita – was similar to other former imperial port cities like Liverpool, Newcastle or Marsailles.
Norway was another country which – in the eyes of many – couldn’t afford the independence it eventually gained in 1905. At the time it had limited selfgovernment within Sweden and one of the great bones of contention was that the consular service and tariffs were biased towards the more agrarian Swedish economy rather than the export-biased Norwegian one. Calls for greater independence were widely felt across Norway, but there were still some who were afraid its consequences, as was illustrated by a letter from ‘R.H.’ in The Times of July 6th, 1892. Headed ‘A Warning from Norway’, it argued:
‘… as regards the immediate point of consular representation, the opinion of the commercial class in both kingdoms, as expressed in the chambers of commerce, beginning with the Norwegian capital itself, is decidedly hostile to it. … At the same time it seems scarcely possible that the leaders of the movement can clearly realise the fate they are preparing for the country by what may well be termed a suicidal agitation … would not be a free national existence but subserviency, not to say bondage to Russia … [Norway] reduced to conditions of a central Asian khanate.’
More than a century later, it is certainly obvious to all that an independent Norway has not become a ‘central Asian khanate’.
To bring us closer to our present time, Slovakia gained independence in the famous ‘Velvet Divorce’ of 1993, an event which – in an otherwise generally balanced editorial – The Independent of December 31st, 1992 foretold with some gloom. ‘ … There is no shortage of potential disputes,’ it noted. ‘Currency union is doomed, with the Czechs determined to balance their budget and the Slovaks expected to head down the road of deficit financing and inflation.’ Continue reading »

Cambria Books

New publication.
New translation of the Physicians of Myddfai by Terry Breverton

Cambria Books

New publication. Entertaining guide to the US Elections by Denis Campbell.
© 2011 CAMBRIA POLITICO Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha