Saturday, April 11, 2009

We'd be better off...because....just because.

Plaid Cymru MEP, Jill Evans:
Describing the difference independence would make to Wales' status in the EU, she said: "We have four MEPs - we'd have about 12. We'd have our own commissioner and we'd be voting in the Council of Ministers."

She continued: "When you say to people that six of the 27 member states are smaller than Wales, people are really shocked by that... It becomes clearer to people we'd be much better off as an independent member of the European Union."

In what way exactly?

Several questions to ponder:

1. As an independent state would Wales obtain more financial support from the EU than present?

2. What kind of real power do those 6 smaller countries wield (in comparison to the UK) in the all important bartering, horse trading, negotiations which take place behind closed doors?

3. In a parliament of over 785 MEPs is there a great deal of difference in terms of influence wielded between having 4 and 12 seats?

4. And most important of all, if Wales were to separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, what’s the guarantee that the European Union would even accept them into the club anyway?

7 comments:

Stonemason. said...

Plaid with about 5% of the vote who wish for independence are very vocal, politically prominent through their collaboration with the Labour party in Wales, and very odd.

But we have a problem, there is a cross party elite, Welsh snobs that includes most of the Welsh Assembly and the myriad of Welsh Quangos, that wish to be big fish in a little pond.

Fortunately the cat is out of the bag.

wildgoose said...

"But she is confident the party can grow to become the largest force in the Assembly and attract voters from non-Welsh-speaking backgrounds."

Would it be cynical of me to suggest that one of the reasons for Plaid's encouragement of Welsh teaching and insistence that public employees be bilingual even in areas (e.g. Pembrokeshire a.k.a. "Little England") that never spoke Welsh might just ever so slightly be related to this statement?

I do remember reading that you could predict Plaid's vote just by looking at the number of Welsh speakers there were in the constituency.

Shades of Ireland really. The Irish language used as a badge of Irishness and being "not British". After the Republic gained its independence though, and despite official "support", Irish Gaelic went into precipitous decline.

I wonder if the real Welsh language die-hards realise that independence might just be the act that kills the Welsh language?

And before I get ambushed by the "Taffia", please understand that I would want the Welsh language to survive, I am merely pointing out the old adage "Be careful what you wish for...".

tony said...

Wildgoose

Your suspect knowledge of history has me wondering if it is deliberate and not altogether as I first suspected. A couple ae wee crackers from someone who is not part of the "Taffia", whatever that means in your xenophobic little Engelander mind mein herr. I know what you are thinking bloody Jocks sticking their noses in, all against the English blah, blah.........I mean what have we ever done? Read on:

>>Would it be cynical of me to suggest that one of the reasons for Plaid's encouragement of Welsh.......<<

Exclusive shocka! Welsh nationalists like their own language. You are not cynical mo Chara but highly delusional.

>>.......even in areas (e.g. Pembrokeshire a.k.a. "Little England") that never spoke Welsh....<<

God in heaven the sum of your knowledge knows no beginings. You may want to look up if indeed the people did ever did speak the native language of this island.

>>I do remember reading that you could predict Plaid's vote just by looking at the number of Welsh speakers there were in the constituency.<<

I reckon that India or the Philipines could mass produce yellow dragons to help us better identify the untermenchen buggers.

>>Shades of Ireland really. The Irish language used as a badge of Irishness and being "not British". After the Republic gained its independence though, and despite official "support", Irish Gaelic went into precipitous decline.<<

Exclusive shocka, the Irish "really" are not British! (see O'neill what some of you Unionists are doing to easily confused minds) And as for the "precipitous decline" nonsense, I have seen this claimed often but never proved.

Your last two paragraphs are hysterically patronising ma man. For someone who is forever on some fantastical paranoid quest to prove we all hate the English, ye do a helluva a joke ensuring that we can get around to some individuals if not the job lot.

wildgoose said...

Pembrokeshire has been known as "Little England" for centuries because...drum roll... ta da! ... They weren't Welsh speakers. I suggest you look it up if you don't believe me. I've also visited the place and had conversations with the people who live there. So what's your source then?

I reckon that India or the Philipines could mass produce yellow dragons to help us better identify the untermenchen buggers.

Typically offensive nonsense. I was repeating a claim that I had read and which a cursory glance at Plaid's voting heartlands suggested was true. If you want to object, why not point out all the constituencies where this is wrong. I am more than happy to be corrected, it's not my assertion after all. I suspect I'll be waiting for a long time though...

And I see you have acknowledged that Irish Gaelic went into precipitous decline after Independence. Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

"The number of native Irish-speakers in the Republic of Ireland today is a smaller fraction of the population than it was at independence. Many Irish speaking families encouraged their children to speak English as it was the language of education and employment; the Irish-speaking areas today were always relatively poor and remote, and this remoteness caused the survival of the language as a vernacular."

tony said...

Let's face it Wildgoose you are no Ally Campbell. Your tiresome and wholly agenda riven attempts at spin almost always fail at the first challenge. The catastrophe for the Irish language was not independence but the commision by omission type genocide of the Irish by the British in the 1840's. Whole areas of the countryside were depopulated, especially Irish speaking areas. So in essence the "precipitous decline" may be true in this era, but does not stand upto your claim post independence.

A quarter of the population now speak irish on a regular basis if not exclusively. The language thrives in culture and arts. If anything the precipitous part of your claim fails because of independence, and not pre-empted by it.

>>Pembrokeshire has been known as "Little England" for centuries because...drum roll... ta da! ... They weren't Welsh speakers. I suggest you look it up if you don't believe me. I've also visited the place and had conversations with the people who live there. So what's your source then?<<

I've visited Pollokshields in Glasgow and had conversations with the people there. Well tried to anyhow but the buggers speak Punjabi and Urdu, and they have done for thirty years. Would it be idiotic of me Wildgoose to reckon that there were no native British languages, subsequently replaced by Gaelic ditto Scots previous to my visit(rhetorical) Go and lie down in a dark room please, you are now under Doctor Tony's orders.

>>Typically offensive nonsense.<<

Yep, mine was intentional. The only hope for you ma man is that your series of offensive comments were not.

wildgoose said...

Apparently the "True Gaeltacht" areas have a population of around 20,000. Large numbers of school kids who were forced to sit through compulsory Irish lessons does not make for a vibrant living language, whatever you may try and "spin".

As it happens, when I was a teenager I tried to learn Irish Gaelic using the Linguaphone course in my local library. Of course, with no opportunities to actually use it my interest was doomed. But it is amusing to listen to (gaelic) Clannad CDs with friends and have conversations like "This is beautiful, I wonder what she's singing?" to which I could reply "I am sitting"...

You're fond of implyng that the English "ethnically cleansed" all the "Celtic" speakers from Britain. The Romans however described England as being inhabited by Germanic tribes speaking a language little different from the "Belgae", (modern Dutch). And of course, we still do. They've done genetic analysis showing that the English have been here for thousands of years. Not the Scots though - they were invaders from Ireland.

Actually, the main attempts at genocidal ethnic cleansing in the British Isles were actually aimed at the English. The Battle of Brunanburgh was won by the English against the combined forces of Wales, Scotland, Strathclyde, Dublin Vikings and so on. We still have contemporary Welsh sources exulting that the intention was to drive every last Englishman out of England.

And as a Yorkshireman I can tell you that we haven't forgotten William the Bastard's "Harrying of the North" in which he laid waste to most of Northern England, murdering every man, woman and child he could find, slaughtering livestock and burning all the crops and villages.

Mind you, your fellow Norman Robert de Bruis was fond of similar tactics wasn't he? Although for some reason the Scots treat him as a big hero. Must be some reason... Oh, that's right. He was also fond of killing English people, so it seems he's automatically forgiven for murdering Scottish people...

tony said...

Wildgoose

First off you are a scream and have had me laughing virtually all the way through, unintentional on your part I know but thanks anyhow. Now where to begin:

I take it by ignoring the Welsh little England points regarding language that you have realised the foolishness of your ways, glad you took Doc Tony's advice. Though your blabberings haven't seemed to stop.

>>You're fond of implyng that the English "ethnically cleansed" all the "Celtic" speakers from Britain.<<

I'm pretty sure that I have never claimed this never mind being fond of it. What you are implying is that I advocate mainstream historic archealogical thought on this matter. You would be wrong again.

>>The Romans however described England as being inhabited by Germanic tribes speaking a language little different from the "Belgae", (modern Dutch). And of course, we still do.<<

See only part of this is current academic theory, the rest {as usual} you have made up. Ceaser described "some" of the tribes in the south east of England eg. the Atrabetes as being little different from the Belgae, he never once described them as Germanic. And of course you do not speak a language similar to modern Dutch at all, if anything it is more Scandanavian.

>>They've done genetic analysis showing that the English have been here for thousands of years. Not the Scots though - they were invaders from Ireland.<<

Bullshit! Whilst the DNA has changed a lot less than was first thought, eg in parts upto 15% of male lines in eastern England it is less so in Scotland apart from the northern isles where the Norwegians left their mark. You are pish poor at spin like I have said before. The English(as an identity) have only existed a bare what 1200 years. Incidently the Irish and Scottish DNA markers are all but the same anyhow. Strange that you have made up claims in the past about the Irish ethnic cleansing yet reject long held theory for the east of England. Agenda anyone?

The rest is as per usual subjective nonsense dressed as ancient history. Without needing to over-egg do you reckon we could claim 10/20/50 atrocities commited against Scotland for everyone commited by Scots against England(rhetorical) Go look up the history of the soon to be reclaimed berwick.

This is another cracker:

>>Mind you, your fellow Norman Robert de Bruis....<<

How can I be a Norman ya tool. And the Bruce "Hammer of the Germans" was a direct descendant of the ancient royal line of Scotland. To call him a Norman would be like calling your present royalty Germans........................Haud oan wait a minute!!!!!!!