Crown Estate: Westminster holds the power claims campaign group
One from Welsh secretary Jo Stevens on behalf of prime minister Keir Starmer, confirming Westminster's refusal to transfer the Crown Estate to Wales.
The other, from first minister Eluned Morgan confirming the Welsh Government's commitment to securing control of the Crown Estate.
YesCymru chairman Phyl Griffiths said: 'These letters reveal exactly where decisions about Wales are really being made – and it's not in Wales.
"The Welsh Government understands that control over our natural resources is key to our economic future, but Westminster's answer is simply 'no'. This is why our campaign will only intensify until the Crown Estate is transferred to Wales.'
YesCymru has led a national campaign for transferring the Crown Estate to Wales, which is backed by all 22 Welsh councils.
YesCymru director Rob Hughes said: 'It's a farce that YesCymru has to act as a go-between to get clarity on the Crown Estate.
"Why are the Welsh and UK Governments not talking directly to each other about Wales' resources? This back-and-forth through us only highlights how little say Wales has in decisions that should be made here at home.
"Until we have independence, we will remain at the mercy of a system where Westminster holds the power and Wales gets the leftovers.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Unless he can fix things at home, Keir Starmer will get no credit for his diplomatic skill
All prime ministers end up being their own foreign secretary. Keir Starmer started off as one. He has been moderately successful in foreign affairs, but has gained no credit for it from the British electorate. He has played a role in rallying Europe to the defence of Ukraine. This bore fruit at what we might call the half-baked Alaska summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The meeting failed to end the war in Ukraine, but that also means that President Trump did not sell out the Ukrainian people, which he has threatened to do. We cannot be sure how important European voices, including the British one, were in holding the line, but it seemed as if the conference call Trump held with European leaders on Wednesday was a significant moment. The briefing from the Europeans was almost ecstatic: that the US president seemed to recognise that a peace on Putin's terms was unacceptable, and that it was Putin who was the obstacle to a fair settlement. Starmer has played a surprising role in organising that show of European unity. Surprising, because so many of those who wanted Britain to stay in the EU argued that leaving would diminish our standing in the world. On the contrary, Starmer's diplomacy has vindicated the Brexiteers who said we could be more nimble, more creative and more assertive outside. Precisely because Britain is not a member of the EU, Starmer was better able to overcome EU disunity by assembling his 'coalition of the willing' to pledge solidarity with Ukraine, backed up by plans for (some) higher European defence spending. He was able to do it because the British people are so supportive of the Ukrainian cause. That allowed him to finesse the two possible sticking points in giving practical expression to that support. As with a lot of opinion-poll findings, the British are very supportive of the Ukrainians until it starts to cost them a noticeable amount of money. We have thrown open our doors to 200,000 refugees, but higher taxes to pay for the Ukrainian war effort? Ni, dyakuyu. Luckily, Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, found an electorally painless way of increasing defence spending by simply switching money from the most unpopular Budget heading, namely foreign aid. The almost total silence since that announcement in March has been instructive: the great enlightened achievement of Tony Blair and David Cameron in meeting the UN target for foreign aid spending is something that, it turned out, almost nobody cared about. The other sticking point in support for Ukraine is the idea of sending troops to help repel Putin's aggression. That has been out of the question for all of Ukraine's allies: we are happy to supply arms and money, but Ukrainians must do the fighting. Yet British public opinion is sufficiently supportive that Starmer has been able to talk about deploying British forces to help deter further Russian aggression if there is a peace deal. It is unclear how or whether this would work, but it has helped focus attention on the difficult question of who would guarantee a settlement and how that would work. What was most surprising about Trump's statements after the Alaska summit – apart from referring to Mark Rutte as the 'highly respected secretary general of Nato' – was his promise that the US would provide 'robust security guarantees' to support Ukraine. All in all, then, and considering how badly the summit could have gone, given Trump's belief that the Ukrainians brought their troubles on themselves, his disdain for Nato and his desperation for a Nobel Peace Prize at any cost, the Alaska meeting went well. Starmer can take some credit as the leader of a nation that is an important ally of Ukraine and an enemy of aggression. But that is another limit to the sympathy the British people feel for the Ukrainian cause: they are not going to reward their own leader for giving their sentiments practical expression on the world stage. Just as they are not going to give Starmer credit for his handling of the US president on tariffs, which has allowed him to carve out a better deal for the UK than for any other country. Nor will they give Starmer credit for the deal with Emmanuel Macron by which France has accepted that Britain can send back some of the people crossing the Channel in small boats. My astonishment at Starmer's skill in securing this concession is heavily outweighed by most people's dismay that the boats keep coming. The British public has had enough of the boats and is not inclined to wait a year or more to see if the numbers being sent back can be increased to the point where they act as a deterrent. I remember the European Parliament election in 1999, when Tony Blair had saved the Muslim population of Kosovo from expulsion by Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian dictator. It was a moment of shining moral leadership, by which Blair persuaded a divided Nato and a reluctant Bill Clinton to stand up to ethnic persecution, and which was a triumphant success. It was a success that brought him 15 minutes of adulation from the tabloid press, followed almost immediately by sullen complaints about traffic jams and trains not running on time. In the European election, held on the day that the Serbs withdrew, Labour did extremely badly. What reminded me of that election was a 'government source' quoted in The Times: 'World War Three is breaking out internationally; it's unreasonable for people to expect Keir to be caring about potholes.' Wrong, wrong, wrong. International leadership is well and good, but unless Keir can fix the potholes and stop the boats, it counts for nothing with the voters.
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Public think Labour will use new online laws for censorship
New laws will be used by the Government to censor content posted online, a majority of the public believe. There is strong backing for the aims of the Online Safety Act to protect children from online harms but deep scepticism about the consequences for people's privacy and whether it will work in practice, a major poll of more than 2,000 adults by Ipsos has revealed. While 69 per cent supported age verification for platforms hosting harmful content, half of those polled were not confident it will stop under-18s accessing it, according to the poll, published exclusively today by The Telegraph. More than six in 10 (61 per cent) believe the Act will lead to personal data being compromised and a similar proportion (58 per cent) expected increased government censorship. More than four in 10 say it will threaten free speech online. It follows The Telegraph's disclosure of a secretive 'spy' unit which has been used by the Government to target social media posts criticising migrant hotels and 'two tier policing'. Last week the US state department criticised the Online Safety Act over its potential impact on free speech as it warned the British Government had 'repeatedly intervened to chill speech' after the Southport attack. The Act also sparked a political row after Reform UK leader Nigel Farage pledged to repeal the Act as a threat to free speech, prompting Labour to accuse him of being on the side of sex offenders like Jimmy Savile. Keiran Pedley, Ipsos director of UK politics, said the poll exposed a 'significant paradox in public opinion'. 'While there is a clear and broad desire to protect children online, reflected in the strong support for age verification, this is matched by deep-seated scepticism about whether the Act can deliver on its promises,' he said. 'Data breaches and the potential for censorship are highlighted, as the public doubt these measures will be effective against tech-savvy young people. This creates a major challenge for platform operators and regulator, Ofcom: how to implement robust age assurance systems that the public actually trusts and is willing to use.' Nearly half (48 per cent) believe the Act will enable parents to better protect their children from online harms and 46 per cent said it will enable adults to more easily block inappropriate material. However, 44 per cent believe it will limit free speech online, against 40 per cent who do not. A similar proportion (43 per cent) fear it will limit adults' access to 'non-harmful' information online. Half of those polled (48 per cent) said they would be likely to submit proof of age to access a platform or website, against 30 per cent who would not. However, this dropped to 14 per cent for porn sites and 19 per cent for dating apps. More than half (56 per cent) were comfortable with using their email as proof of age but the public drew a line at financial information, with fewer than one in five saying they would use a credit card or banking information. Almost seven in 10 Britons (69 per cent) believed it would be easy for children and young people to get around safeguarding procedures by social media platforms. More than half (51 per cent) feared that it would lead to children using less safe parts of the internet such as the dark web. Nearly a quarter (24 per cent) admitted that they used a VPN when browsing the internet, a technology that enables users to encrypt their communications and hide their IP address. A similar proportion (22 per cent) said they had considered or downloaded a VPN since the introduction of the Online Safety Act. Despite this, four in 10 (40 per cent) believed the Act would prevent children and under 18s from seeing illegal or harmful material, although 52 per cent did not believe it would. While 37 per cent believed the legislation would make platforms and websites remove harmful and illegal content, 51 per cent did not.
Sky News
32 minutes ago
- Sky News
Sir Keir Starmer and his allies have no choice but to keep their Trump criticisms implict
Sir Keir Starmer is straining his diplomatic sinews to simultaneously praise Donald Trump's efforts to end the war in Ukraine, while repeating calls for a completely different approach - one which ends the cosy bonhomie with Vladimir Putin, threatens the Russians with sanctions, and puts the Ukrainians back centre stage. If that's a message which feels like quite a stretch in writing, in person, during this morning's call of international leaders, it must have been even more awkward. Donald Trump 's public dismissal of the Europeans' previous calls for a ceasefire - after his tete-a-tete with Putin - has only highlighted divisions. Of course, the prime minister and his European allies have no choice but to keep their criticism of the Alaskan summit implicit, not explicit. Even as they attempt to ramp up their own military preparedness to help reinforce any future peace deal, they need President Trump to lead the way in trying to force President Putin to the negotiating table - and to back up any agreement with the threat of American firepower. For Downing Street, President Trump's new willingness to contribute to any future security guarantee is a significant step, which Starmer claims "will be crucial in deterring Putin from coming back for more". It's a commitment the prime minister has been campaigning for for months, a caveat to all the grand plans drawn up by the so-called Coalition of the Willing. While the details are still clearly very much to be confirmed, whatever comments made by Donald Trump about his openness to help police any peace in Ukraine have been loudly welcomed by all those present, a glimmer of progress from the diplomatic mess in Anchorage. 5:08 Of course, the promise of security guarantees only means anything if a peace deal is actually reached. At the moment, as the European leaders' bluntly put it in repeating Donald Trump's words back to him: "There's no deal until there's a deal." 8:31 Fears of Zelenskyy being painted as warmonger There is clearly real concern in European capitals following the US president's comments that the onus is now on Volodymyr Zelenskyy to 'do a deal', that the Ukrainians will come under growing pressure to make concessions to the Russians. As former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said: "Given that Donald Trump has failed to deliver a deal, his track record would show that Donald Trump then usually tries to seek to blame someone else. I'm worried that next week it could be President Zelenskyy who he will seek to blame. "He'll paint him as the warmonger, when in fact everybody knows it's President Putin." The European leaders' robust statements describing the "killing in Ukraine" and Russia's "barbaric assault" are an attempt to try to counter that narrative, resetting the international response to Putin following the warmth of his welcome by President Trump - friendlier by far than that afforded to many of them, and infinitely more than the barracking President Zelenskyy received. They'll all be hoping to avoid a repeat of that on Monday. But as in Alaska, the other European leaders won't be there. Despite their long phone calls, the White House doesn't seem to be listening.
