Four reasons why I'm asking everyone I know to vote Yes on 3 March

Reason number one

If the current devolution process was in place in any other area of Welsh life there would be uproar.

Imagine: Warren Gatland picks his team and makes a gameplan for the opening game of the World Cup but Martin Johnson and the suits at Twickenham refuse to let the Welsh players play an expansive game in the second half. Instead, they have to keep the ball up their jumpers in their own 22 until thirty seconds before the end, when Johnson will tell Gatland whether or not Wales are allowed to score.

That wouldn't be acceptable and neither is the current system of political devolution. A Yes vote means that Wales will be in control of our political tactics and gameplan. (And we'll still be part of the Lions squad when it comes to things like defence and foreign affairs.)

Reason number two

It's a vote about Wales, our country. It's not about politicians, government or the Assembly.

We need to have the courage and self-respect to run things that are already devolved to us by ourselves - just like Scotland and Northern Ireland have been doing over the last decade. A Yes vote reaffirms that Wales is as much of a country as these two places.

If you don't like the politicians we've got then vote in some new ones in the May election. Or stand for election yourself.

Reason number three

The Assembly's not perfect. But neither is Parliament (Iraq, cash for questions...).

At least the Assembly is full of people from our communities, working for Wales. The Welsh voice at Westminster is tiny and gets swallowed up by the 600 other MPs each looking out for their own part of the UK. Only the Assembly puts Wales first.

A Yes vote lets the Assembly run things that are already devolved exactly according to who we elect. A No vote keeps Wales at the mercy of civil servants in Whitehall and unelected peers in the House of Lords who have a veto over many things that the Assembly may want to do in areas that are already devolved, like health and education.

Reason number four

The vote is not about:

1. more tax - a Yes vote would not increase taxes or give the Assembly the power to raise taxes.

2. more politicians - a Yes vote would not increase the number of Assembly Members.

3. politicians 'grabbing power' for themselves - the power already exists at Westminster. The vote is about whether Wales should have a bit more of that power. Even most MPs think that we should and will themselves vote Yes.

What's the Welsh for "the sums don't add up"*?

There's been a lot of bluster recently surrounding the Assembly Commission's decision to stop translating Plenary debates from English into Welsh. The motive behind the Commission's proposal was to save £250,000. In the face of vocal opposition, a compromise of sorts has been proposed: all debates will be translated but within 3-10 days of Plenary rather than the 24-hour deadline that currently exists.

The first thing that bothered me was the idea that the home of Welsh democracy, one of whose self-declared main ambitions is to promote and protect the Welsh language, would consider reducing its own bilingualism. Since when has "do as I say not as I do" been a successful mantra? Then I read the story again. £250,000?!

Plenary takes place every Tuesday and Wednesday, from 1.30pm until anywhere between 5pm and 7pm. So the job consists of transcribing 3.5-5.5 hours of debate and then translating it. Assuming there are two transcribers - allowing them 30 minute mini-shifts to save their wrists and their sanity - and two translators writing up the Welsh the following day (7.5 hours), the total manhours for each Plenary translation should be around 26 hours (11 transcribing plus 15 translating).

Plenary sat 66 times in 2008-09. Using the above calculation gives a total of 1716 manhours. If the Commission's £250,000 figure is correct, then those transcribing and translating the Plenary Record are being paid somewhere in the region of £150 per hour. This equates to an annual salary of around £60,000.

Either the Commission pays transcribers and translators huge sums or *"dydy e ddim yn taro deuddeg".

Climate Camp Cymru 2009: Ffos-y-Fran

I attended my first Climate Camp yesterday, catching the train to Merthyr Tudful and walking to the camp near the Ffos-y-Fran opencast mine.

I had been invited months ago but had let the invitation sit in Facebook without a response. Friends have been to previous UK Climate Camps at Heathrow and Kingsnorth. They sounded like interesting places where ideas were hatched and debated. They were places where action was planned and taken to highlight the Governments' contradictory decisions regarding climate change: "we'll cut emissions by 80% but we're also going to increase airport capacity". But I didn't sign up straight away, probably because I was still quite dubious about the nature of these camps (what could they achieve?) and the people attending them (just how hard-core were they?).

Talk in the pub a couple of weeks ago reminded me about the Ffos-y-Fran camp and I decided to go. Not to camp overnight, mind you, but to go and see for myself one Saturday afternoon. On the train I asked myself why I was going. The urgency of climate change: one. Two: support the locals in Merthyr who I know have been fighting the mine hard. Three: take myself out of my comfort zone and experience something new. Four: see this mine that I'd read about.

First impressions were good. The camp looked organised, there were plenty of people milling around and ducking into one large tent I heard a few minutes of informed, impassioned debate about credit unions and the current banking mess. Things got even better when I found the kitchen tent and, parched from the slog up the hill from the train station, was able to procure a cup of Rosy Lea.

I wandered around, into and between the Bicycology tent (free repairs!), the face-painting tent, the Toilets: Poo Only, Gwagle Gweithdy 2, the Toilets: Wee Only. I noticed in the Handbook that had been given to me at the Welcome tent that Gwagle Gweithdy 3 would, at 2.15pm, see a discussion on the effectiveness of internet-based activism. As I'd only be around for one workshop before catching the train back to Cardiff, this looked like the one.

When I got to Gwagle Gweithdy 3, which was next to/part of Gwagle Gweithdy 2, the chalk on the small blackboard outside had been drizzle-smudged. I stuck my head in. Another similarly novice-looking guy came in behind me. A few people were applying clown face-paint. "Have you got mobile phones?" we were asked. I fumbled in my pocket while my novice friend said "I've turned it off." "You need to take the battery out." Stupidly, I did this without asking why. Having complied with the clown's request, I asked if this was where the internet activism workshop would be. "Dunno. But if you find it, mate, will you come back and tell me about it cos I'm interested in that." "Err, yeah, if I find it." I left the tent.

Feeling as though I really shouldn't have come I began wandering around the camp again. "Site meeting!" someone suddenly shouted through a loud-hailer. "Everyone meet!"

A circle of about 80 people gathered in the drizzle. Apparently there was some confusion over just what had been decided on Friday regarding a march on Saturday afternoon. Could someone clarify what they thought had been agreed upon?, a lady asked. Someone did. Could I take any points on that?, the lady asked. Lots of people did. 45 minutes of points simple, technical and directly-relevant. Lots of frustration.

It seemed the issue was that locals (and some protestors) were not happy with "breaking the law direct action" as compared with going on a march up the hill to the mine. If we all went together, so it appeared, then the police would not be able to distinguish between who was marching and who was more intent on mischief. Fair enough. But this was talked over, under, around and through for 45 minutes in an attempt to reach consensus and we didn't get anywhere.

After about 20 minutes, someone pointed out that we had arranged to meet local residents for the march at 2.30pm and if we didn't leave now then the locals might get annoyed waiting. Not even that shook people out of the discussion. Someone proposed that the Affinity Groups (small groups of people willing to take direct action) should leave 2-3 minutes later than the march to show the police that they were separate. 2-3 minutes wasn't enough time to make that distinction, someone countered. Does anyone have a proposal to make that distinction more obvious, asked the lady. Ummm, I pondered, how about more minutes? Bonkers.

I had gone from being impressed by the organisation - erecting a squatted camp and sustaining themselves for days is a truly impressive achievement, to being utterly disengaged. The principle of consensus decision-making is a valid one but I couldn't help thinking that people with even less experience of it than I have would not stick around for the action that it might produce.

I wandered off again, not sure whether I'd go on this march. I didn't know whether it was illegal, whether I'd be arrested, the route we were taking even. I spoke to a nice woman weaving baskets. When I looked back at the meeting the meeting had dissipated. Had the march actually started? I walked over, thinking about whether I should join, and saw another meeting circle. The people who were staying behind to protect the camp were talking tactics. Bloody hell. I ran to catch up with the marchers.

Over the stile and up the hill. A woman applauded out of the window of her car in support of the protest, others beeped. The mine was further than I had hoped. Near the top of the hill, the police had erected a human wall and informed us that the road was closed. People milled about. I had no idea what was happening; no-one had talked about this eventuality at the meeting. What were we doing?

Some people drifted onto the common land at the roadside to circumnavigate the police roadblock. I, too, walked up the hillside as there was no view of the mine from the road. What I saw from the top was truly upsetting and I didn't see half of it. This mine is huge. The plan is to extract 11 million tons of coal over the next 15 years, burn it to produce electricity and pump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as Mozambique over the same period. Despite having been live for more than two years, the 'Environment' pages of the official website are conveniently and unbelievably still 'under construction'.

This mine is also ridiculously close to people, just 37 metres in some places. Looking down from the hilltop it was easy to see (and hear) the nuisance caused by this proximity. Merthyr has been shat on.

While clowns and protesters dressed as penguins spread across the common land to avoid the police, I came down off the hill and caught my train back to Cardiff. I feel I have achieved what I wanted to achieve. In marching up the hill I demonstrated support for the people of Merthyr and their campaign. In being at the camp I took myself out of my comfort zone. In being frustrated at the site meeting's circular arguments, seemingly without urgency, I experienced something new. And in climbing the hill I saw the mine. I saw the mine and I was ashamed.

Could Welsh rugby organise a piss-up in a brewery?

The Guardian reports that Wales wonder coach Warren Gatland is questionning his position. The Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) and Gatland want the regions to release their international players thirteen days ahead of the opening Autumn fixture against South Africa. They argue that this is in line with the existing participation agreement between the WRU and the regions, signed in 2004.

However the regions are refusing and claim that Gatland did not approach the regions with his requirements for the whole year as the agreement requires. Asking for players to be released at this stage in the season is not allowed for in the agreement. Such a move would also leave the regions' squads depleted for the final group round of the Anglo-Welsh Cup. The resulting stand-off has led to the WRU asking the International Rugby Board for a ruling to resolve the matter.

In the meantime the regions have formed a group - Regional Rugby Wales (RRW) - that will speak with a united voice when dealing with the union. Former WRU Chief Executive and author of the 2004 agreement David Moffett has been recruited to head RRW and says that the regions want a new participation agreement, presumably along the lines of that negotiated in England earlier this year. That left the clubs in a much stronger position than before, receiving healthy sums for releasing international players and bypassing the union when striking sponsorship and television deals.

Wales's previous Grand Slam-winning coach Mike Ruddock prophesised back in March that the only thing that could stop Wales from conquering the world was internal discontent. Ruddock lost out in a power game with the WRU and Welsh rugby was in the doldrums for more than a year. Gatland has the WRU under control but the creation of RRW means that the regions could well prove to be his bete noire.

Cwmniau Cleantech clodfawr

Two of the top ten hottest clean technology companies in Europe are based in Wales. According to Cleantech 100, produced by The Guardian and Library House, Deep Stream Technologies in Bangor and Atraverda of Abertillery are worthy of a place in the higher echelons.

Deep Stream Technologies are reshaping electronic circuits to monitor, measure and manage energy at the point of use. Sensors within the circuits help to control the use of power.

Atraverda work with conductive ceramic that stores power better than conventional lead-acid methods. This allows for smaller, lighter, more powerful and longer-lasting batteries. The bipolar batteries developed by Atraverda can be 40% smaller, 30% lighter, and use approximately 50% less lead than normal batteries.

Other Welsh companies to make the list are Inetec, Bridgend, generating energy from food waste, Pelikon, Caerphilly, developing next generation liquid crystal displays, and G24i, Cardiff, creating new solar cells that operate in low-light conditions.

Jimmy of Wales

When both First Minister and Deputy First Minister were in Kentucky for the handover of the Ryder Cup, much was made of Wales needing to boost its image abroad, especially in the States and especially among businesspeople.

Step forward Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. He should be signed up to record a TV commercial exploring Wales. The guy's got the perfect name and the perfect profile to penetrate the USA psyche with tales of Wales. With a name like that I can only assume that there's some Welsh link somewhere in his ancestry; even if there's not, if it were me I'd still be interested in learning about the country I had for a surname.

Re-thinking recycling

First we learn that Wales is recycling more than ever before. Then we hear that the amount of harmful gases Wales releases into the atmosphere continues to increase. This is reminiscent of a story earlier this week about a couple who had recycled enough tins, bottles and cans at their local supermarket to earn thousands of loyalty points that they then spent on two return flights to the US. (Point, the, missed, they).

Recycling is commendable in as much as it develops understanding that many resources are finite, and it is an easy way for people to engage with the climate change agenda. People and politicians alike have latched onto recycling precisely because it is easy, but it is only one aspect of a familiar refrain: 'Reduce, re-use, recycle'. It is obvious that even recycling double what we do now will not prevent the disastrous consequences of climate chaos - especially if that means twice as many loyalty points and twice as many transatlantic flights.

WWF have calculated that if everyone on earth lived as we do in Wales, we would need three planets to sustain that lifestyle. We simply have to reduce our levels of consumption; the way we are living now literally cannot last.

The world has recently been caught out living beyond its financial means and is suffering a massive 'correction'. The WWF research shows that an environmental 'correction' is inevitable, and it would be more devastating in the long term than any financial collapse. Reducing drastically our environmental footprint now will make that environmental 'correction' less painful.

In one way Wales is lucky. Power stations account for over a third of Wales's carbon dioxide emissions and Wales has wind, waves and tides in abundance that could replace dirty coal. If we are going to cut emissions, leadership needs to be evident and big decisions taken about the de-carbonisation of our energy supply.

Price misses the mane target

Sport and politics do not mix. This mantra was heard for months leading up to the Beijing Olympics as justification for attending the games in a country whose human rights record is second-last to none. Is Adam Price not familiar with it?

He wrote an article recently, referring to it on his blog, that questionned the future of the British and Irish Lions. The Lions, he said, should be "superseded by a standing European team which would play a series every two years, alternately home and away, against a Southern Hemisphere XV: a sort of Ryder Cup for rugby." The reasoning behind this idea was "half sporting, half identity-politics". It looks more like 100% identity-politics to me.

Even were this European team to exist alongside the Lions - highly unlikely given the already full fixture calendar - such a move would serve to dilute the Lions project. Rugby fans rightly love the Lions: the heritage, the all-too-rare series wins; one simply can't argue for an attack on the Lions from a sporting point of view. In making his case, Price says that the world has changed. Indeed it has; 'British' no longer necessarily means empire.

Plaid made good ground in several south Wales councils in May. They gained six seats in Caerffili, three in Torfaen, seven in Rhondda Cynon Taf and now lead the Council in Caerffili. Price's comments on the Lions will no doubt have been heard and discussed in one of the rugby heartlands. He must hope that his comments, sacreligious to many in the rugby world, do not alienate these new-found voters. As Director of Elections, he should concentrate instead on communicating Plaid's vision for Wales in terms of jobs, education, health and housing.

I bet on a horse at ten-to-one and it came in at half-past five

The Western Mail reports today on the unnoticed success that Wales is enjoying in the world of horse racing. Wales currently provides four of the top ten National Hunt trainers. Surprising though this is, the piece fails to mention Sam Thomas winning the Cheltenham Gold Cup this year, Carl Llewelyn's successful move into training or the amazing return from injury of Christian Williams.

The article does draw attention to the importance of the horse racing industry to rural communities. South west Wales, home of two of the four trainers, is fast becoming a horsey hub. Alongside Wales's first horse hospital at Narberth, the new racecourse at Ffos Las, near Trimsaran, will be completed next August - the first new National Hunt racecourse to be built in the UK for 80 years.

While horse racing may help rural communities, the betting industry that it spawns is turning some urban areas into pockets of uniformity, feeding on the dreams of those who live there. On a recent half-hour walk through Grangetown, I passed at least six betting shops.

About a year ago the applications process for new betting shops was relaxed. Previously, the bookmaker had to prove that demand in the area was not already fulfilled; last September this requirement was removed. As a result, councils can turn down an application only if they are able to prove the bookmaker is not "fit and proper", unfair to punters, a source of disorder and putting children or other vulnerable people at risk.

It is not only horse racing that draws in the punters, of course. Each betting shop is allowed four 'fixed odds betting terminals' - electronic touch-screen roulette and blackjack machines. The Guardian estimates that they produce £2000-2500 of profit per week and notes that they have been dubbed 'the crack cocaine of gambling addicts'.

The Gambling Commission survey of 2007 found that most people in the UK (68%) take part in some form of betting. If we remove the National Lottery from the results and examine all other forms of gambling - casinos, bingo, horse racing, etc. - around 1,000,000 more people placed a bet in 2007 than in 1999. Indeed betting on horse racing jumped from 13% of all betting to 17% over the same period and was the only form of betting that both men and women did more of. There are over 250,000 problem gamblers in the UK, mostly from low-income backgrounds.

The rash of betting shops spreading across our towns and cities not only removes a little more of their individuality, it also facilitates the proliferation of poverty in what are often already deprived areas.

[I should point out that I like a bet (and was gutted when Thomas won on Denman as I was on Kauto Star). Unsurprisingly there are no betting shops in Pontcanna.]

PFI: People Filched Indiscreetly

Politicians' lack of foresight never ceases to amaze. On climate change, even when a former Chief Economist of the World Bank advises to "spend 1% of global GDP to address climate change now or global GDP will be 20% lower than it otherwise would be", still the wheels of change are turning so slowly, if at all.

On Public Finance Initiative (PFI), New Labour has since 1997 enthusiastically embraced John Major's idea to open up the public sector to private competition. This is in spite of the fact that schemes run under PFI tie the tax-payers of tomorrow into decades of payback and end up costing far more than they would had they been directly paid for by government in the first place. As things stand today PFI contracts in the NHS alone will provide private companies with £23bn profit over the next thirty years.

In Wales there are 42 PFI projects with a capital value of over £1bn. Neath Port Talbot Hospital was built under PFI at a cost of £66m. The tax-payer will end up paying the private company £300m, nearly five times the original cost. St David's Community Hospital in Cardiff will cost nearly eight times as much to the tax-payer as the private company spent on its development.

It seemed that the One Wales government had seen the iceberg as it ruled out the use of PFI in the Welsh health service during the third term. (It is unclear why One Wales rules out PFI in the NHS and says nothing about its drawbacks when it comes to building roads or schools.) Now, sadly, Captain Morgan might be tempted to steer the good ship Cymru onto the rocks. The National Assembly's Finance Committee has produced a report stating that Wales "needs to develop partnerships with the private sector" in order to deliver "the investment and modern public services that Wales needs."

Government both local and national has long contracted private companies to build roads, prisons, hospitals, schools, etc., paying for them directly out of taxation. PFI works by getting private companies to build roads, prisons, hospitals, schools, etc. and then renting them to the government, which pays the rent with taxation. As any property developer knows, over time renting will bring in much more cash than selling.

Registered private companies have a legal duty to their shareholders to maximise profit. In other words, profit comes before everything else, including people. Profit comes before not only the people who use these services but also those who work there - the teachers, nurses and doctors. In the public sector, which is historically where most schools and hospitals have been, people come first.

Government, elected by the people, also should put people first. One might argue that it is concern for people that leads to PFI being used to construct new roads, prisons, schools and hostpitals. Yet ultimately the people will pay more - far more - than these things are worth. As with life under the credit boom, we are told that we can have it all: put it on the card! Eventually though we'll have to pay for it, most likely through higher taxes. Yet higher taxes now could have meant paying £66m for Neath Port Talbot Hospital directly in the first place rather than £3oom a few decades down the line.

It's short-sighted, it's irresponsible, and it sucks.

Welsh Affairs Select Committee

Back in July the Welsh Affairs Select Committee complained that AMs were sending too much work their way. As the Committee is the group of MPs that debate and process Legislative Competency Orders, they are a vital cog in the new machine of 'Welsh law'.

Of the forty MPs Wales returns to Westminster, Plaid has as many as the Tories (three) and the Lib Dems have four. I was therefore surprised to learn that there are in fact three times as many Conservatives on the Committee as either Plaid or Lib Dems.

The clerk of the committee told me that "The appointment of Members to serve on select committees is made by the House of Commons, on a recommendation from the Committee of Selection (itself a select committee). Membership of select committees is intended to reflect, so far as is possible, the balance of the political parties as returned to Parliament at the last general election." In other words, the Conservatives' strength in parts of England means that they are awarded a greater number of positions on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee than parties performing as well, if not better, in Wales alone.

More intriguingly, Mark Pritchard, one of the Conservatives on the committee, represents The Wrekin, near Telford, Shropshire. Apparently, MPs serving on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee do not have to represent constituents most affected by 'Welsh Affairs'. I'd have thought the clue was in the name.