Archive for March, 2009
27th March 2009
Ynni ar gyfer pwy, a phwy fydd yn elwa? Energy for whom, and for whose benefit?
Mis nesaf y bydd ymgynghoriad y Llywodraeth ar Forglawdd yr Hafren yn dod i ben. Mae yna lot yn y fantol yng Nghymru.
Pe bae’r Llywodraeth yn dewis mynd am y prosiect mwyaf, fe fydd yn cynhyrchu 5% o holl anghenion trydan y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Gan fod Cymru gyda 5% o boblogaeth Prydain – a gan mai Cymru fydd yn gyfrifol am hanner y generadu - fe allai yr un prosiect yma gynhyrchu hanner o holl anghneion trydan Cymru.
Ar amser pan mae gorsaf 2 gigawatt wedi cael ei chyhoeddi yn Sir Benfro, gorsaf newydd yn ne-ddwyrain Cymru, posibilrwydd cryf o weld Wylfa B, ynghyd a llwyth o gynlluniau ar gyfer melinau gwynt a gorsafoedd bio-mas, mae’n deg i ni yng Nghymru ddechrau holi ar gyfer pwy mae’r holl ynni yma yn cael ei gynhyrchu a phwy fydd yn elwa?
O feddwl bod gan Lywodraeth Cymru bwerau cyfyngedig iawn yn y cyd-destun hwn – a chyfrifoldeb cynllunio dros gynlluniau 50 megawatt neu lai – mae’n anodd peidio a dod i’r casgliad bod Cymru yn cael ei defnyddio fel lleoliad ar gyfer generadu trydan i Loegr, heb lawer o fudd i ni gan fod yr ennillion yn diflannu dros y ffin.
Yn achos y morglawdd, wrth gwrs, mae’r sefyllfa yn waeth byth oherwydd adnoddau naturiol Cymru – ei dwr a’i harfordir – sydd yn cael eu hecsploetio. Rhyw fath o Dryweryn fodern fydd y morglawdd os nad ydym yn wyliadwrus – ein hamgylchedd yn cael ei ddinistrio heb fudd uniongyrchol o gwbl (ar wahan i swyddi adeiladu dros dro) i bobl Cymru . Yr unig wahaniaeth yw bod y dwr y tro hwn yn hallt.
Mae’n bwysig felly bod Llywodraeth Cymru – fel mae Cyfeilllion y Ddaear yn awgrymu – yn cefnogi’r prosiectiau ‘llai’ – llai dinistriol i’r amgylchedd ond yn fwy buddiol i Gymru. Mae’r morglawdd bach – y morglawdd Shoots – er enghraifft a’r mantais amlwg ei fod yn dilyn mwy neu lai llwybr y rheilfford presennol. Os ydym am weld cysylltiad cyflymdra uchel newydd o Dde Cymru i Lundain, dyma’r cynllun i’w gefnogi.
Gellir ei gyfuno hefyd gyda chwpl o forlynnoedd llanw a’i gyllido heb arian cyhoeddus yn ol adroddiad a baratodd PriceWaterhouseCoopers i’r Llywodraeth Brydeinig. Y cwestiwn allwedddol sydd yn codi wedyn yw beth ddylai digwydd gyda pherchnogaeth yr is-strwythur ar ol diwedd cyfnod y consesiwn o 35 mlynedd i’r consortiwm sydd yn ei adeiladu. A hyd bywyd y cynllun wedi ei amcangyfrif yn 120 mlynedd gellir rhagweld incwm o £360 miliwn y flwyddyn am 85 o flynyddoedd, sef cyfanswm o dros £30 biliwn.
Ac eto awgrym PWC yw trosglywddo’r perchnogaeth a’r incwm i Lundain. Mae hyn yn sarhad yr un mor ddeifiol a Thryweryn.
Codi argae yn wyneb gwrthwynebiad Cymru roddodd fodolaeth i’r mudiad dros Senedd i Gymru. Y Senedd sydd yn gwynebu’r dwr a’i morglawdd bach ei hunan sydd yn gorfod dangos yn awr bod pennod drefedigaethol ein hanes wedi darfod.
***
Next month the Government’s consultation on the Severn Barrage comes to an end. There’s a lot riding on this for Wales.
If the Government decides to go ahead with the largest project, it will produce 5% of the UK’s total electricity needs. With Wales having 5% of Britain’s population – and as Wales will be responsible for half of that generated – this one project can generate half of Wales’s energy needs.
At a time when a 2 gigawatt power station has been announced for Pembrokeshire, alongside a new station in south-east Wales and the strong possibility of seeing Wylfa B, as well as a host of plans for wind farms and bio-mass plants, it is only fair that we in Wales start to ask for whom all of this energy is being produced and who will be benefiting?
Remembering that the Welsh Assembly Government has very limited powers in this field – with planning responsibility for projects of 50Mw or less – it’s difficult not to come to the conclusion that Wales is being used as a location for generating England’s electricity, without much benefit for us because the proceeds disappear across the border.
In the case of the Barrage, of course, the situation is worse still because it’s Wales’s natural resources – its water and coastline – that is being exploited. The Barrage will be a sort of modern Tryweryn if we are not alert – our environment being destroyed without any direct benefit at all to the people of Wales (except for temporary construction jobs). The only difference this time is that the water is salty.
It’s important that the Welsh Assembly Government – as Friends of the Earth suggest – support ‘lesser’ projects – less destructive to the environment, but more beneficial for Wales. For example, the smaller barrage, the Shoots barrage, has the obvious advantage that it more or less follows the path of the current railway. If we want to see a high-speed rail link from South Wales to London, then this is the project to support.
It could be combined with several tidal lagoons that could be funded without public money, according to a report prepared by PriceWaterhouseCoopers for the British Government. The key question which is subsequently raised is what should happen with ownership of the infrastructure after the end of the 35-year concession to the consortium who build it. With the lifetime of the project estimated at being 120 years, an income of £360m for 85 years is anticipated – a total of more than £30 billion.
Yet again, PWC suggest transferring the ownership and income to London. This is an insult as cutting as Tryweryn.
Building a dam in the face of Welsh opposition gave being to the Parliament for Wales movement. A Parliament that faces the water and its own barrage must show that this chapter of our colonial history has ended.
19th March 2009
Don’t write off the tuition fee grant…..yet
It was on the Carmarthenshire leg of Ieuan’s Wales-wide walk in 2006 that I first floated the idea of a debt write-off policy for Welsh students as a means of tackling student debt and addressing the brain drain by attracting those studying in England back home after graduation. It is to Ieuan’s eternal credit that this Plaid policy – one of our 7407 - is now Welsh Government policy. There are many other positive things to welcome in the announcement by Jane Hutt (who is, incidentally, a friend whose sincerity I greatly admire – I once stupidly called for her resignation as Health Minister, a mistake I won’t be repeating on this occasion) yesterday.
It will come as no suprise though that I am deeply disappointed by her decision to phase out the Tuition Fee Grant. I was also very disappointed by her rather perfunctory response to my four-page letter outlining my concerns about the policy and the consultation process. Since my letter has been published in full I’ll do the same for Jane’s response:
“Dear Adam
I write in reply to your letter of 27th February.
As you will be aware, a great deal of further discussion has gone on over the past three weeks.
The Assembly Government’s collective view is represented by the statement I have made to the Assembly in plenary today, and which I am pleased to include here.
Yours sincerely,
Jane Hutt
I think it would have been a basic courtesy to at least attempt to address the specific points I raised. Maybe the Minister was advised to keep her counsel in case a judicial review is sought.
The most serious charge I made was that policy was essentially based on misleading information. The Cabinet minutes for the meeting of November 17th baldly state: “It was apparent that the TFG had not had the effect of encouraging Welsh students to study at Welsh HEIs.”
Whether deliberate or not, this is a complete distortion of the facts. In 2004/05 the proportion of Welsh first-year full-time undergraduate students studying at a Welsh higher education institution was 65.84%. This figure – the lowest for the four ‘home nations’ – fell further (it had been on a downward trend since 2003/04 despite the explicit Assembly goal of increasing it to 70%) to 64.3% in 2005/06. Top-up fees were introduced in England in 2006/07 but Wales decided to diverge from the policy and not pass this extra cost onto students (initially by delaying the introduction of variable fees by a year, then by introducing the tuition fee grant the following year so that students didn’t have to pay the top-up element themselves). The effect of this policy was dramatic: the proportion of Welsh first-year students staying in Wales increased from 64.3% to 70.8%, with Wales even overtaking northern Ireland in the process. This progress has been maintained in 2007/08, the latest year for which figures are available.
Even Universities UK (not a body known for its sympathy to anti-fees arguments) had to admit the success of the policy in its most recent study of the effect of variable fees:
“As we suggested, the 2006/07 first-year enrolment data on cross-border flows within the UK show a marked increase in the proportion of Welsh-domiciled students choosing to study at Welsh higher education institutions between 2005/06 and 2006/07. The introduction of variable fees in Wales was postponed until 2007/08, so that in 2006/07 Welsh domiciled students enrolling on their first year in 2006/07 faced significantly lower fees than if they had chosen to study at an English institution. Even with the introduction of variable fees in Wales from 2007/08, Welsh-domiciled students have a strong incentive in the form of a fee support grant of £1,835 to enrol at Welsh institutions. The trend towards increased numbers of Welsh-domiciled students choosing to study at Welsh institutions may therefore be expected to continue.”
I will continue to press Jane to publish the policy paper on which the Cabinet discussion was based.
The second argument employed in defence of the U-turn on fees is that the policy hasn’t widened particpation in higher education from people from lower income groups. It is true that the performance of the Welsh HE sector in widening access has been poor – but the fault for that lies not with the tuition fee grant but with the failure of the Government (including previous Education Ministers) to keep the sector to the promises they made when variable fees were introduced. In England the Government required any university wishing to charge variable fees to publish an access agreement setting out how it planned to widen participation. A minimum of 30% of the additional money raised through top-up fees had to be spent on access-related measures. All of this is overseen by OFFA(the Office of Fair Access) to which Universities have a statutory duty to report. In Wales, the emphasis on access has been much weaker: no new body was created to oversee implementation instead the responsibility was given to HEFCW; instead of statutory ‘access agreements’ universities must simply produce tuition fee plans which have no legal status and have been much lower profile. In Wales too, universities wishing to charge top-up fees have been asked to spend at least 30% of the additional funds on widening access and promoting higher education but there has been very little scrutiny of what they are doing with the money.
Take Cardiff University, for example: Cardiff’s plan promised to spend 30% of itas additional income on access/HE promotion in 2007/08 (amounting to £3.908m) rising to 31.88% (£8.158m) in 2011/12. But if you delve into the detail you see that some of this can hardly be justified as promoting access at all: half a million a year goes on ‘information services’ and another £110k goes towards two additional teaching posts. It’s difficult to see why these two items of expenditure are included within the 30% of additional funding that is meant to promote HE generally or widen access among under-represented groups. Most outrageously of all, Cardiff includes £837k rising to £2.587m by the end of the five-year plan (over a quarter of the widening access budget) for estate investment – new buildings essentially – which really should come out of the Universrity’s general budget for capital investment. This is about the same as the amount ear-marked for the Cardiff University bursary (£2.678m in the final year). In other words if Cardiff prioritised access properly it could double the amount given to students who need it.
Now Cardiff will undoubtedly argue that needs must – and shiny new lecture theatres are necessary for it to compete with its Russell Group competitors. That’s as may be, but the fact is that a commitment was made by Ministers on access and it’s the Welsh Assembly Government that has failed to hold the sector to account. For Ministers then to turn around and blame the tuition fee grant for the failure to make progress on access will simply not wash. The Tuition Fee Grant did its job. HEFCW and DCELLS simply haven’t been doing theirs.
The wider implications of the U-turn in Wales is that it makes the task of defeating the proposal to raise the tuition fee cap (which will affect England and Wales) much more difficult. The success of the distinctive policies on fees in Wales and Scotland was a significant bulwark against those Vice-Chancellors who want to create a full-scale market in higher education. The Welsh Assembly Government’s capitulation on fees has strengthened their hand. Jane Hutt was asked what position the Government was taking on this and refused to be drawn. But raising the cap would have a disastrous effect on Welsh students and the Welsh HE sector.
I am glad that my party has given its members a free vote on this issue and I hope as many back-benchers as possible vote in line with party policy. If one party in the Coalition has granted a free vote, then I think it is only fair that Labour members are afforded the same courtesy – Huw Lewis AM has been equivocal about his own position on fees, and Alun Davies – who was President of NUS Wales when I was on their executive – has expressed his preference for a graduate tax which is NUS UK’s current policy. If the Tories still oppose fees – which is far from certain as they have dropped their opposition in England and Paul Davies yesterday sounded as if he was supporting the Government’s line – then the vote could be close. The Lib Dems- like Plaid – still have policy opposing fees since their activists quashed a leadership move to dilute their opposition at their recent Spring Conference – so it’s not just in Plaid that the activists have been on the march. I still hold out some hope that this vote can be won. We came within three votes of defeating fees at Westminster. Perhaps once again the Assembly can succeed where Westminster has failed.
If the vote is lost and any legal action proves unsuccessful, then I am determined to ensure that Plaid will make a clear commitment to reverse this policy come 2011: I’d even like to see us make it a red line, the price for our participation in any administation. It will be a popular policy. As yesterday’s poll by the University and College Union shows: 60% of people would be more inclined to vote for a political party that promised not to increase university tuition fees. Only 11% said they would not be influenced by a party’s tuition fee policy. Tuition fees will, I think, be a clear dividing line betwen Plaid and Labour come the next Assembly election - just as it was last time.
Agenda Preifateiddio y Blaid Lafur / Labour’s Privatisation Agenda
Pum mlynedd ar hugain yn ol, fe welon ni ymgais fwriadol gan Lywodraeth i ddiddymu yr Undebau Llafur.Chwarter canrif yn ddiweddarach, gyda’u cynlluniau i breifateiddio’r Post Brenhinol dyma yna lywodraeth arall yn ceisio gwneud yr un peth. Ac eto, onid Llafur sydd mewn grym? Ie, a dyna’r broblem i ddilynwyr efengyl Llafur Newydd. Gyda’r argyfwng mae cyfalafiaeth yn mynd drwyddo’n fyd-eang mae yna frwydr am einioes – ac enaid hyd yn oed – y Blaid Lafur.
Mae’r cynllun preifateiddio yn torri addewid maniffesto ac yn fwy arwyddocaol fyth, yn groes i’r cytundeb Warwick a seliodd cefnogaeth ariannol yr Undebau i fuddugoliaeth Llafur nol yn 2005. Nid fi yw’r unig sydd o’r farn mai penderfyniad bwriadol yw hwn er mwyn pryfocio’r Undebau i ddad-ymaelodi o’r Blaid Lafur. Gofid y neo-rhyddfrydwyr Llafur Newydd yw y bydd yr argyfwng economaidd yn gyrru’r Blaid Lafur yn anorfod nol i’r chwith. Ymgais yw hon efallai i gael gwared o undebau fel y GMB a‘r CWU sydd yn creu problemau i Mandelson a’r Blairiad eraill yn y Cabinet.
Esgus felly yw dadlau mai dyma’r unig ffordd i ddelio gyda’r diffyg yn y Pensiwn. Awgrym y Llywodraeth yw cymeryd drosodd y cyfrifoldeb fel y digwyddodd gyda’r Cynlluniau ar gyfer yr Heddlu, y Gwasanaeth Sifil a’r Gwasanaeth Iechyd: yn y tymor byr bydd y Llywodraeth ar eu hennill gyda rhyw £27 o biliynau yn dod mewn i goffrau’r Trysorlys. Ond os ydyn nhw’n fodlon gwneud hyn, pam ddim ei wneud e beth bynnag a rhyddhau’r Post Brenhinol o’r £280 miliwn mae nhw yn gorfod talu i fewn i’r Gronfa i wneud yn iawn am y diffyg yn barod? Diffyg wedi etifeddu yn rhannol yw hwn o ddyddiau BT pan oedd hwnnw hefyd yn rhan o’r Swyddfa Bost. Ydyn ni wir eisiau preifateiddio eto gan gadw cost y pensiwn i’r trethdalwr a chynnig elw rhad i gystadleuwyr tramor y gwasanaeth post cyhoeddus?
Os ydy’r ddel yn mynd trwodd, dyma fydd diwedd y Blaid Lafur fel yr ydym yn ei hadnabod. I fi, daeth y diwedd nol ym 1984 pan ddewisiodd arweinydd Llafur blesio papurau Rupert Murdoch yn hytrach na chefnogi’r glowyr oedd yn brwydro am ddyfodol eu cymunedau. Fe daliodd rhai i gredu ac i frwydro – tan nawr efallai. O bosibl, bydd rhai undebau nawr yn cysidro ail-sefydlu’r blaid lafur annibynnol yr oedd y ddau DJ, hoelion wyth y Blaid, Williams a Davies, yn aelodau ohoni canrif yn ol cyn sefydlu’r Blaid Genedlaethol. Pe bae rhywrai yn gwneud hynny yng Nghymru fi fyddai’r cyntaf i wneud cais i ymuno a hi – pe bae’n chwaer-blaid i Blaid Cymru a threfniant tebyg i’r un rhwng Llafur a’r Blaid Cydweithredol. Dyma fyddai dwr clir, coch go iawn – a glannau afon gwyrdd y Blaid bob ochr iddi.
———————————————————————————————————————–
Twenty five years ago we saw a deliberate attempt by the Government to annihilate the Trade Unions. A quarter of a century later, with their plans to privatise the Royal Mail, we have another government doing the same thing. But, hang on, is it not Labour that’s in power? Yes, and that’s the problem to the followers of New Labour’s Gospel. With the crisis that capitalism is going through internationally there is a battle for the life – and even the soul – of the Labour Party.
The privatisation plan breaks their manifesto pledge and, even more significantly, goes against the Warwick agreement that secured the Unions’ financial support for Labour’s victory back in 2005. I’m not the only one of the opinion that this is a deliberate decision in order to provoke the Unions to resign from the Labour Party. Neo-liberal New Labour’s fear is that the economic emergency is driving the Labour Party unavoidably back to the left. Perhaps this is an attempt to get rid of the unions like the GMB and the CWU who create problems for Mandelson and the other Blairites in the cabinet.
It’s an excuse therefore to argue that this is the only way to deal with the Royal Mail pension fund deficit. The Government’s suggestion is to take over responsibility as happened with the pension policies for the Police, the Civil Service and the Health Service: in the short-term the Government will gain by some £27 billion coming into the Treasury’s coffers. But if they are happy to do that, why not do it in any case and release the Royal Mail from the £280 million they must pay annually into the Fund to make good the deficit that already exists? A deficit inherited in part from the days when BT was also part of the Post Office. Do we really want another privatisation that places the pension cost onto the taxpayer and offers a knock-down price public postal service to foreign competitors?
If the deal goes through, this will be the end of the Labour Party as we know it. To me, the end came back in 1984 when Labour’s leadership chose to please Rupert Murdoch’s papers rather than support the miners who were fighting for the future of their communities. Some kept the faith and fought on – until now perhaps. Maybe some unions will consider re-establishing the Independent Labour Party of which the two DJ’s, Williams and Davies, Plaid stalwarts, were members a hundred years ago, before founding the Welsh Nationalist Party. If some were to do this in Wales, I would be the first to make an application to join – if it were to be a sister-party to Plaid Cymru with a similar relationship to the one between Labour and the Co-operative Party. That would be real clear, red water – with Plaid’s green shores at its side.
17th March 2009
Laissez-faire has had its day, says Brown, so let’s privatise
Reports over the weekend suggested that Labour UK Chancellor, Alistair Darling, is set to announce that plans to privatise the Royal Mint are further advanced than earlier thought, and may well make an announcement in next month’s Budget. In Wales only Plaid opposes the move. (Vince Cable of the Liberal Democrats went on record in 2004 to promote privatisation of the Royal Mint as part of their privatisation agenda)
When I asked the government a direct question in December as to whether privatisation of Royal Mint was on the cards, they point blank refused to answer. It’s clear that this was their intention all along.
Worse than that, I was accused by the Secretary of State for Wales back in November of ‘reading too much into a single sentence. Perhaps if he had taken the issue as seriously as I did at the time then he would have gone to Cabinet and insisted on knowing the truth.As it is, if the Secretary of State for Wales can’t influence or be bothered to try to influence cabinet decisions in our favour, then what, exactly is his purpose at the table?
Llantrisant is an area that has already been hard hit by job losses from L’Oreal and Bosch, and the possibility of further cuts at the Royal Mint will impact severely upon the morale and the economy of the surrounding area.
This Government has reached the point where it out-Tories the Tories with a mantra of ‘if it moves, privatise it’. This is appalling news on a day when the government will be discussing privatising job-centres and while they are still pushing forward with their privatisation plans for the Royal Mail. Does anyone seriously believe that, 25 years after they failed the miners, the Labour Party in any way stands up for the rights of ordinary workers in this country?
12th March 2009
A vo ben bid bont – let he (or she) that would be leader, be a bridge
“Pan oedd oed Crist 1531” meddai Cronicl Hywel ap Syr Mathew “i torred penn Rh. Ap Gr.” Talfyriad yw hwn am Rhys ap Grufydd ap Urien, un o arglwyddi Dinefwr, yr wyf i wedi cyfeirio ato fe yr wythnos hon ar wefan newydd y Blaid ar annibynniaeth – www.gallcymru.org. Beth yw arwyddocâd dyn a gafodd ei ddienyddio yn 23 oed ar fore 4ydd Rhagfyr 1531? Wel, yn y lle cyntaf mae’r ffaith bod cyn lleied yn gwybod amdano yn dweud cyfrolau ynddo’i hun ar y ffordd yr ydym wedi ein hamddifadu o’n hanes ni ei ein hunain fel cenedl. O herwydd ei drosedd oedd ceisio gwneud ei hun, yn ol y ddedfryd, yn dywysog annibynnol Cymru.
Y Rhys hwn oedd wyr Syr Rhys ap Thomas, prif gefnogwr y Tuduriaid yng Nghymru, a’r dyn wnaeth fwy nag unrhyw un bron i roi’r “Mab Darogan”, Harri Tudur, ar Orsedd Prydain Fawr. Trodd y freuddwyd yn sur i Gymru a theulu Dinefwr o fewn cenehedlaeth. Fe benodwyd Sais, yr Arglwydd Ferrers, o flaen Rhys i dra-arglwyddiaethu yn ne Cymru ac ymddangosodd tueddiadau canoli grym cyntaf y Wladwriaeth -Eingl-Brydeining sydd i raddau helaeth dal gyda ni heddiw. Gwrthododd Rhys derbyn gwrth-Gymreictod Harri’r Wythfed, nag ychwaith ei Wrth-Gatholigiaeth. Nid yn unig merthyr cenedlaethol oedd Rhys, ond y merthyr Catholig cyntaf yn hanes y Diwygiad Protestanaidd ym Mhrydain. Ei wncwl, James ap Gruffydd ap Hywel oedd yr ysbiwr Catholig cyntaf o Brydain i fynd i’r Cyfandir: yn chwilio am gefnogaeth y Pab efallai i wrthrhyfel yng Nghymru.
Yn llinach a ddaeth i rym i wireddu proffwydoliaeth, mi oedd mytheg yn fyw ar lys y Tuduriaid. Soniodd y ddedfryd yn erbyn Rhys am yr hen ddarogan y byddai bran a llaw coch yn maeddu brenin Lloegr. Arfbais Dinefwr oedd tri bran – mae’r llaw coch efallai yn gyfeiriad at Owain Lawgoch, neu at Ogledd Iwerddon oedd mewn gwrthrhyfel ar y pryd. Fe ‘dorrwyd pen’ Rhys ar Tower Hill neu’r Bryn Gwyn yn ol y Mabinogi y claddwyd pen Bran y brenin mytholegol. Rhys hefyd oedd dysgynydd Uried Rheged: pen Urien y ceisiodd Llywarch Hen ei warchod rhag syrthio i fewn i ddwylo ei elynion.
Fe dorrwyd pen y dyn ifanc yma (fel cymain o’i gydweladwyr gynt – Llywelyn ein Llyw Olaf, Rhys Ddu, Rhys ap Tudur ) o herwydd iddo herio awdurdod gwleidyddol Lloegr. O fewn ychydig flynyddoedd fe dorrwyd yr hyn oedd yn weddill o hen annibyniaeth y Cymry hefyd: cyfreithiau Hwel Dda, a ysgrifennwyd yn Ninefwr, yr iaith a’r hyn oedd yn grefydd i ni ar y pryd. Dienyddio Rhys oedd gweithred cyntaf y deddfau Uno.
I raddau healeth mae hanes y ddau Rhys – yr un yn dangos ffyddlondeb i Lundain a’r llall ffyddlondeb i Gymru yn darlunio’r dewis mae pob cenhedlaeth wedi wynebu yn y blynyddoedd wedyn. Yr unig wahaniaeth nawr yw nad oes neb bellach yn mynd i roi ein pen ar bicell. Nyni ydy meistri ein dyfodol ein hunain, os dewisiwn ni fod. A vo ben bid bont.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
“In the Year of our Lord 1531,” says the Chronicles of Hywel ap Syr Mathew, “Rh. Ap Gr. lost his head.” This is an abbreviation of Rhys ap Gruffydd ap Urien, one of the Lords of Dinefwr, whom I referred to this week on Plaid’s new website on independence –www.walescan.org. What is the significance of this man who was executed on the morning of 4th December 1531, at 23 years old? Well, firstly the fact that so few know about him itself speaks volumes about the way we are deprived of our history as a nation. Because his crime was trying to make himself, according to the verdict, the prince of an independent Wales.
This Rhys was the grandson of Sir Rhys ap Thomas, the Tudors’ chief supporter in Wales and the man who did more than almost anyone else to put the ‘Son of Prophecy’, Henry Tudorr, on the British Throne. The dream turned sour for Wales and the Dinefwr family within a generation. He appointed an Englishman, Lord Ferrers, ahead of Rhys to the governorship of south Wales and displayed the first signs of the centralising tendencies of the Anglo-British state that, to some extent, remain with us today. Rhys refused to accept Henry the Eighth’s anti-Welshness, nor his anti-Catholicism. Rhys was therefore not just a nationalist martyr but the first Catholic martyr in Britain’s Protestant Reformation. His uncle, James ap Gruffydd ap Hywel, was the first Catholic spy from Britain to go to the continent: in search perhaps of Papal support for an uprising in Wales.
As a family whose own rise to power was steeped in legend, myth was a central feature of the Tudor court. The indictment against Rhys spoke of an old prophecy that ravens and the red hand would defeat the King of England. The Dinefwr’s coat of arms was three ravens – the red hand perhaps referred to Owain Lawgoch (Owain Redhand), or to Ulster, which was in revolt at the time. Rhys ‘lost his head’ on Tower Hill or the White Hill where, according to the Mabinogi, the head of Bran (the Raven), the King of legends, was buried. Rhys was also a descendant of Urien Rheged: it was Urien’s head that Llywarch Hen tried to prevent it falling into his enemies’ hands.
This young man’s head was lost (like many of his compatriots before him – Llywelyn Ein Llyw Olaf (Our Last Leader), Rhys Ddu (Black Rhys) and Rhys ap Tudur) because he challenged England’s political authority. Within a few years, the remainder of Welsh independence was lost too – Hywel Dda’s laws, written in Dinefwr, the language and what was our religion at that time. Rhys’ execution was the first act of Union.
To some extent the history of the two Rhys’s – one showing fealty to London and the other his loyalty to Wales – depicts the choice that every generation has faced in the years since. The only difference now is that no-one is going to put our head on a spike. We are the masters of our own future, if we choose to be. A vo bid bont – let he (or she) that would be leader, be a bridge.