Llythyr agored at David Cameron
Dear Dave,
In the light of Alex Salmond’s victory in Scotland, with a referendum on independence impending, you’re promising to fight for the Union with every fibre of your being. You needn’t bother.
1
The Union doesn’t mean much to you, really. You care about England. The only thing the UK means to you is that you can keep sucking the fag-end of England’s imperialism.
When you say Britain and British, you mean England and English. Don’t you?
Britishness is about rooting out indigenous values and cultures and having a single English culture prevail. You can have your single English identity in England, can’t you?
The UK is all in your mind, Dave.
2
Politically, getting rid of Scotland would be good for the Tories. Salmond’s victory won’t change the fact that the Scottish contingency of MPs sent to Westminster will always be weighed down by a rump of Old Labour. Without Scottish MPs, your own majority would be much clearer.
3
And of what use to you are the two annexes called Scotland and Wales? They bring in less money than they spend. And the nats may be right: their lack of sovereignty and self-determination may be the root cause of their lack of prosperity. They may not prosper within the UK.
They might have fuelled Britain’s economy in the past. They had labour and resources to be exploited. Not any more. So just as the UK does not make Scotland or Wales more prosperous, the do not add much prosperity to the UK.
So basically, you won’t miss the UK. You’ll be much happier in England, and just England. Don’t bother fighting for a concept that does no-one much good.
Sincerely,
Guto
The proponents of AV believe it increases fairness - it doesn’t.
Indeed there is an unfairness at the heart of it.
It means rather than everyone’s vote being counted equally, some votes get counted more than others.
If you vote for a mainstream candidate who is top of the ballot in the first round, your other preferences will never be counted.
But if you vote for a fringe party that gets counted, but then knocked out, your other preferences will be counted.
That means some people can get two, three, four, even five bites of the cherry.
It means the second, third, perhaps even fourth vote of someone who supports the Monster Raving Loony Party can count as much as the first vote of someone who supports the Conservatives - or the Liberal Democrats or Labour for that matter.
David Cameron (sori). Dyna’r anniddigrwydd mawr sgen i ar hyn o bryd; dwi’n ymylu at bleidleisio Na o’r herwydd. Ond os gall rhywun esbonio pam mae dehongliad Dave yn gamarweiniol, dwi’n barod i newid fy meddwl!
Dwi’m yn cofio lle o’n i tro dwytha - ond dwi bron yn siŵr mod i wedi symud i’r chwith!
There has been a disproportionately large number of Plaid stakes put up in the Rhymney Valley…
Wayne David, AS Caerffili, sydd wedi bod yn bygwth hen fenywod ac yn tynnu’r placardiau i lawr. Byddai’n ddefnyddiol i’r Blaid Lafur ddarparu ffigurau er mwyn i bawb wybod faint o gefnogaeth i bleidiau heblaw Llafur sy’n dderbyniol yn y cymoedd.
Hanes Penlan Fawr
Dydw i ddim yn un am hel tafarndai, ond os os gynnoch chi ddiddordeb mewn hanes mae gwefan Penlan Fawr - tafarn ym Mhwllheli, dwi’n meddwl - yn un dda.
Mae yna ysgrifau gan Iwan Edgar ynghylch hanes y dafarn ac am y lluniau sydd ar y parwydydd. Mae’r gyntaf yn seiliedig ar archwilio archifau ac ar astudio pensaerniaeth y dafarn ei hun…
Ond fel y mae yr wyf yn chwannog i feddwl y gallai’r prif adeilad yn wreiddiol yno o gyfnod mor gynnar â thua 1578, ond fod cryn newid ar y ffenestru wedi bod. Ymddengys i mi fod y 4 brif ffenestr yn rhy lydan i fod yn wreiddiol yn “Sioraidd” a’u bod wedi bod yn rhai delltog deuran.
Mae’r ail yn ystyriaeth onest o’r grymoedd hanesyddol sy’n creu tref…
“Rargol, fedri di ddim rhoid llun Hitlar ar y wal?”
“Pam lai?” meddwn innau, a chyfiawnhau’r peth yn ddigon syml: Dim dilyniant o bethau neis a phobl glên ydyw hanes. Mae’n ymhell o hynny’n weithiau. Cofnod o wneud llwybr drwy frwgaij llwyddo a methu, ennill a cholli, cael y maen i’r wal neu wneud llanast ohoni, ydyw hanes go iawn.
Joe Lock yn tramgwyddo eto
Sylwadau annoeth ar Facebook gan ymgeisydd Llafur ym Môn ydi’r peth mwyaf cyffrous yn ymgyrch yr etholiad cyffredinol yma. A’n gwaredo. Fydd y ffaith i Joe Lock ddweud ei fod o’n dymuno gweld Margaret Thatcher yn cael ei chrogi a Thoriaid yn cael eu trywanu a gwaywffyn ddim yn costio’r un bleidlais iddo. Mae’n dangos anaeddfedrwydd gwleidyddol plwyfol, ond ymgeisydd Llafur ydi o wedi’r cyfan.
Ond mae’r Toriaid a’r cyfryngau mor bored nes eu bod nhw’n gwneud hyn yn stori fawr.
Nid y sylwadau yma ydi tramgwydd mwyaf Joe Lock, ond y ffaith ei fod o’n credu bod y math hwn o siaced siwt dj-aidd, efo llinellau duon ar ymylon y llabedau, yn addas i neb ond pimp, heb sôn am ymgeisydd mewn etholiad.
Mae o hefyd wedi bod yn taflu amheuon ynghylch rhywioldeb un o etholwyr y sir. Pa fath o ymgeisydd sy’n ysgwyd llaw â’r llaw chwith?!
Honedig
Pam mae newyddiadurwyr yn mynnu dweud ‘allegedly’ am bethau sy’n amlwg yn wir?
Er enghraifft, mae gan y BBC stori am ôl-geidwad yn cael ei ddyrnu. Dyma’r paragraff cyntaf.
A man has been arrested after a goalkeeper was allegedly punched during a League Two football match.
Dyma’r llun sydd reit yn ymyl y paragraff:
Pam mae angen ‘allegedly’?!
Labour are great at spending money on programmes, but are absolutely clueless when it comes to turning Wales into a more prosperous country. It is only by taking the levers of the economy into our own hands that we will have any hope of putting an end to child poverty in Wales.
Contra mundum
Mae arwr pêl-droed fy mhlentyndod wedi bod yn cael affêr efo Imogen Thomas. (Honno o Lanelli oedd ar BB yr un pryd â Glyn Wise.) Fedra i ddim dweud wrthoch chi pwy ydi o, oherwydd mae o wedi cael ‘superinjunction’ yn gwahardd pawb ymhobman rhag sôn am y peth. Fedra i ddim, hyd yn oed, ddweud wrthoch chi pwy sydd wedi cael yr ‘injunction’ yma.
Mae blog Patently Rubbish wedi mynd i’r afael â’r syniad yma o injunction yn erbyn y byd:
If it applies to everyone, then it applies to me also. That means it would be contempt of court for me to tweet or to blog details of this affair. However, because it can’t be reported, I don’t know whose affair it is that I can’t talk about.
That seems to me to breach a basic principle. If I am subject to an injunction granted by a Court, then the scope of that injunction ought to be spelled out to me, such as by serving the injunction on me. […] Here we have an injunction that applies to me but whose terms I am not aware of. That seems fundamentally wrong. […]
Presumably, I could write to the Court or to the celeb’s solicitors to ask them for full details of the case, including a copy of the injunction and a copy of the evidence used in support of the application for it. After all, I am a party to the case - I must be, as I have been injuncted. As one of the subjects of the injunction, I must surely have the right to challenge it in the Court of Appeal, in which case I need a copy of the papers in order to develop my grounds of appeal.
Of course, in providing me with these papers, the solicitors will be providing mr the identities of the guilty parties. Tsk. Ah well.
Dim byd fel chydig bach o resymeg amser cinio dydd Sadwrn!
Di Dafydd Êl jyst ddim yn gwbod pryd i gau’i geg, yn nadi?
