Obviously John Dixon was irritated ...

... with me, he accused me of misrepresentation when I referred to his recent blog entry entitled Decentralism and the EU, I wrote at various locations "the constitutional conundrum that the ex-chair of Plaid fails to comprehend" (or similar).

The brief correspondence can be found here, I have copied it below for the record ....

John DixonFeb 5, 2012 02:21 AM

"the constitutional conundrum that the ex-chair of Plaid fails to comprehend."

I think you should re-read what I wrote. I didn't say that I failed to comprehend it, merely that socialism and decentralism can sometimes lead in different directions, and that it can be difficult to bridge the two in practice. Disagreeing with me is your right, which I respect, but this is misrepresentation.

JohnFeb 5, 2012 03:38 AM

Is it, I wonder ...

... it was your "As a result, to an extent, those of us who advocate decentralist socialism have got away with it for years without really having to put the flesh on the bones. Plaid’s review has recommended doing some work on that – I look forward to seeing it, but suspect that it will be easier to recommend than to achieve."

and ...

"That need for a strong central redistributive policy is really the reason for supporting the continuation of EU structural funding. It doesn’t make the EU a socialist organisation; far from it. But it’s hard to see how a fully decentralist model works to enable fairness without such supranational structures. And that creates a dichotomy."

... if you think I have misrepresented you I am sorry, but how else would I interpret the conflict of opinion I read on your words.

There is a document that describes "A Decentralist Manifesto" by Ralph Borsodi, this is such a perfect description of the path Plaid would take if it dared, you can read it at ...

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/borsodi-ralph_decentralist-manifesto.html

... this particular document describes decentralist socialism perfectly, and to be frank, it could carry this old liberal with it, except for one very small part ... where it describes :

"This manifesto is submitted to the thoughtful and concerned men and women of the world urging them to assume the intellectual and moral leadership of mankind in order to replace those who have demonstrated incompetence, lack of vision, greed, bigotry and brutality."

... take away the irrelevance and you are left with :

"... assume the intellectual and moral leadership of mankind in order to replace ..."

... no democracy you see, something that is dear to me.

To expand my thoughts, where Ralph Borsodi dismisses democracy my mind turned to nationalism of the past, not the horror stories but the political outcomes, what will be left for nationalist Wales if ever Wales became independent.  Would there be a need for the politics of Plaid, it would have achieved its primary aim, what else is there ..........

............ well if the Plaid constitution is to be believed there is no plan for a plural society, and there lies the primary problem with nationalist politics, there is rarely room for other politics, Plaid by its own volition excludes other competing politics.