Welsh indyref ‘absolutely could happen in our lifetime', Plaid Cymru leader says
A referendum on Welsh independence could 'absolutely' be held within 'our lifetime', Plaid Cymru's leader has said.
Rhun ap Iorwerth did not shy away from suggesting his party may be the leading political force in Wales following a poll which predicts Plaid will have the largest vote share in the 2026 Senedd elections.
Plaid is projected to be the largest party in the Senedd following the outcome of the election, with around 30% of votes and 35 seats in the Siambr, according to a YouGov poll published on Tuesday.
Nigel Farage's Reform UK would be the second largest party, with 25% of votes, according to the poll.
The Plaid leader ruled out holding a referendum on Wales leaving the UK in the first term of a Plaid-led Welsh government, when speaking to the BBC's Walescast this week.
He has previously declined to put a timeline on a referendum, after Plaid's last leader Adam Price promised such a vote within five years.
But Mr ap Iorwerth told the PA news agency a referendum could form part of a Plaid government's platform for the future, once it has built trust with the Welsh electorate.
'The key thing is it's up to the people of Wales. And I've many times said that I would have independence tomorrow, but it's not what I think that matters,' Mr ap Iorwerth told PA.
'It's what the people of Wales believe, and I absolutely think we can have that referendum and set us off on a different direction as a country within our lifetime,' he added.
Should Plaid pursue such a referendum in future, it would be likely to need support from other parties in Cardiff Bay and at Westminster, which is unlikely to be forthcoming.
Plaid would focus on 'deep problems within the NHS in Wales', as well as education, economic stagnation and poverty, should it be the party that leads the next Welsh government, Mr ap Iorwerth said.
The next Senedd election will see Welsh voters use a new proportional system to choose their representatives.
Some 49 seats will be required for an outright majority, with the Senedd being expanded to 96 members.
The previous system had an 'in-built bias towards Labour', the Plaid leader said.
Mr ap Iorwerth added: 'That changes with the new electoral system that we have in Wales, and it's a genuine case that wherever people are in Wales, the votes that they cast will contribute towards who can be leading that government next year, Plaid Cymru is putting itself forward as the party to lead that government.
'And if people want that, they can have it with me as first minister, the first non-Labour first minister, setting a different direction for governments in Wales.'
Parties in Wales are likely to have to co-operate following the poll, the Plaid leader admitted, but he continued to rule out a 'formal relationship' with Mr Farage's Reform UK.
Mr ap Iorwerth added: 'We have two conservative parties in Wales now: the Conservative Party, and the Tories on steroids that Reform are: the pro-Thatcher, the pro-Liz Truss, the pro-Trump political party that works against the interests of workers, that works against the interests of businesses in Wales.
'I just don't think that's the politics that is in the interests of Wales.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
19 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
SNP and Reform feed off each other – but Labour is still hungry
Nats activists never tire of referring to Labour & Tories as two cheeks of the same a*** - the same charge can now be levelled at SNP and Nigel Farage's Reform CHRIS MUSSON SNP and Reform feed off each other – but Labour is still hungry SNP activists never tire of referring to Labour and the Tories as two cheeks of the same a***. Well, the same charge can now be levelled at the Nats and Nigel Farage's Reform UK. 1 Reform came a close third to the SNP and winners Labour Neither will want to hear this, but their equally destructive stances on funding Scotland's public services reveal yet another similarity between the two parties, vying for power at Holyrood next year with Labour. Both claim to be the outsiders standing up to the Westminster establishment, though for the SNP this is also not-so-subtle code for England. The stock-in-trade for both is to blame others for all ills. Both engineered referendums to leave major economic unions, and both lean heavily on populist rhetoric. And as we discovered in the run-up to last week's crunch by-election, they both want to cut Scotland's funding off at the knees. They want to do so to further their own narrow, political aims. For the SNP, that's independence. For Reform, electoral domination down south. As underlined by the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election — where Reform came a close third to the SNP and winners Labour — support for Farage is surging amid falls in backing for traditional parties. Scottish Labour have been buoyed by that Hamilton result. and remain hungry for power. But they still face a huge battle. Because the more Reform's support grows, the more likely it becomes the SNP can win the 2026 Scottish Parliament elections with a far lower vote share than they got in 2021. And the two parties don't just share ideas — they are feeding off each other. There may be a point in the coming years — with Farage in No10 and the SNP in power at Holyrood — that these competing forms of nationalism create a perfect storm. Moment John Swinney is heckled by Reform UK campaigners as FM breezes past warring activists heads of Hamilton by-election Both parties have set out how they want the Scottish Government to have more independence in terms of funding, a move that would go a long way to ending the current 'pooling and sharing' of resources which Scotland voted to keep in 2014. The common theme is the scrapping of the Barnett Formula — the funding mechanism which drives Scotland's significantly higher share of public spending than the UK average. Last year, this meant thousands of pounds per person extra to spend on Scots services like the NHS and schools. Scotland spent £22.7billion more than the £88.5bn it raised in taxes in 2023/24. Including oil revenues, we brought in just £60 per head more in tax than the UK average. But we spent £2,417 per head more. Not a bad deal, you may think — unless you look for the worst in everything, as the SNP do. But Holyrood Finance Secretary Shona Robison wants to scrap this 'Union dividend'. She has resurrected an SNP aim to ditch the pooling and sharing — which means that extra spending is covered — and turn that £22.7bn overspend into Scotland's problem. Robison says that short of independence, 'moving to full fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Government would create a fairer system that would protect public services and allow investment in our economy'. Ms Robison knows full well that the opposite is true. Full fiscal autonomy may mean keeping all taxes raised in Scotland — income tax, VAT, corporation tax, oil revenues and so on. HOLYROOD sits just three days a week, when it's not enjoying long holidays. When it does, MSPs spend an inordinate amount of time debating meaningless motions. Last week, the Scottish Government staged a debate and vote congratulating itself for making 'significant progress' towards becoming one of 'Europe's fastest-growing start-up economies'. Some brass neck, given how anti-business and anti-growth the SNP have been. And the previous week, it had emerged that because Scotland's economy has lagged behind the UK average, we are losing hundreds of millions of pounds a year in funds for public services. That's the reality. So how about knuckling down to sorting that out, rather than grandstanding about this imaginary world? But it also means we have to pay for everything. And we simply can't afford it. It means the end of the Barnett Formula, and the Scottish Government having to find ten per cent of its GDP to fill that £22.7bn gap. Borrowing at these levels, even if it were possible, would provoke a response from the markets making Liz Truss's mini-budget disaster seem small fry. If you think the NHS and schools and roads are bad now, just wait for the super-charged austerity under full fiscal autonomy. It would be economic suicide, and Robison is not thick. Which leads me to think this is a kamikaze policy. Scots public services are the target, leading to the inevitable conclusion from SNP chiefs that things are so terrible the only way out of the wreck is independence. And what about Farage? Last week this newspaper tried to get some Scots policies out of him. Reform UK are quite light on those — meaning they really haven't got any. He did confirm he no longer wanted to axe MSPs — good news for the ones who could be elected for Reform in 2026. But one thing he did speak on during his Scots trip was scrapping the Barnett Formula. In his own words, he said it 'seems to me to be somewhat out of date', adding: 'What I'd like to see is a Scottish Government that's able to raise a bit more of its own revenue, and a Scottish economy that has genuine growth.' Like the SNP's funding policy, the consequences would be the opposite of what Farage says. It would strangle spending and growth. With a reduced settlement for public services here — while people in England get the same, or closer, to the current Scots levels — it would mean savage cuts, tax rises, or both. This would also suit the SNP's independence argument. Does Farage care much about that? I'm not sure he actually does. Scotland has never been his priority. Domination in England is. There would be a bit more money for England, styled as one in the eye for 'subsidy junkie' Scots, playing well to potential Reform voters down south. At the heart of it, like the SNP's stance, it's about making Scotland poorer, not wealthier. As the SNP's Trade Union Group put it last week: 'This is code for a bonfire of public services. And the effective end to devolution.' Correct. But they may want to look in the mirror, as SNP chiefs are proposing the same.
Sky News
23 minutes ago
- Sky News
Can you trust Rachel Reeves' spending review numbers?
Sky News' Sam Coates and Politico's Anne McElvoy serve up their essential guide to the day in British politics. The Home Office is the last department to finalise their budget with Chancellor Rachel Reeves ahead of Wednesday's spending review. All eyes are on Yvette Cooper and the noise that comes out of Westminster today and tomorrow that will indicate how much cash the home secretary has secured for things like policing. And, with Nigel Farage due to make a speech today, Sam and Anne catch up on a wild weekend for Reform - at the start of which party chairman Zia Yusuf resigned over a proposed ban on burkas - only for him to reverse his decision and return 48 hours later.
Sky News
38 minutes ago
- Sky News
More than 1,000 doctors urge MPs to vote against assisted dying bill
More than 1,000 doctors have written to MPs urging them to vote against the assisted dying bill, calling it a "real threat to both patients and the medical workforce". The bill - which is due to be voted on by MPs for a final time on 20 June - would allow terminally ill patients from England and Wales to end their lives "on their own terms", providing they have a life expectancy of six months or less. A separate bill is currently passing through the Scottish parliament. But doctors from across the NHS have written to MPs, warning them of their "serious concerns". Notable signatories include Sir John Burn, a geneticist who has led decades of cancer research, Sir Shakeel Qureshi, who was knighted for his work in paediatric cardiology, Professor Aileen Keel, the former deputy chief medical officer for Scotland, and Baroness Finlay, a Welsh doctor, professor of palliative medicine and member of the House of Lords. The letter is signed by four doctors who hold OBEs, two who have MBEs, and one CBE. The letter says that while a debate is needed on end of life care, "this bill is not the answer". It raises concerns that not enough evidence has been heard from doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups. "This bill will widen inequalities, it provides inadequate safeguards and, in our collective view, is simply not safe," it goes on to say, calling it a "deeply flawed bill". 1:40 Professor Colin Rees, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working group on assisted dying, said it was the "single most important piece of healthcare legislation in 50 or 60 years". "It will have very profound consequences for the future and many doctors are really concerned that members of parliament are not hearing the views of the medical profession." He said many doctors who remain neutral, or who even support the principle of assisted dying, remain concerned about the bill. "We don't think it's a bill that is safe, that protects patients, protects families, and protects the medical workforce." What stage are the two assisted dying bills at now? The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed the House of Commons with a majority of 55 in November. Scotland's Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland Bill) pass with a 14 majority in May. But the legislation has not been without controversy, with 150 amendments made to get it through the first stage. The bill will return to the House of Commons for a third reading this Friday. If voted through by MPs it will then proceed to the House of Lords. 'No safeguards against coercion' One of the areas of concern raised by the medics was the inability to properly identify patients at risk of coercive control. "Vulnerable patients are at risk of coercion with women, victims of domestic abuse, and the elderly at particular risk," the letter says. It also warned it would widen social inequalities, with patients who do not have the resources for a comfortable death more likely to opt for assisted dying. "People who struggle to pay for heating or care or wish to preserve their assets for their children are at high risk of choosing to die if the option is available and the alternative is more difficult." Data from the Annual Report of Dying With Dignity from Oregon in 2024 found 9.3% of those people who choose assisted deaths do so for financial reasons. 'Doctors get it wrong 40% of the time' Concerns have also been raised around the inaccuracies of medical prognosis. "Research demonstrates that doctors get prognosis wrong around 40% of the time," the letter says. "As such, patients may end up choosing an assisted death and losing what could have been happy and fulfilling months or years of life." 1:50 The bill is also a risk to families, the letter says, as it does not require doctors to speak with family members. "A close relative may know nothing until they get a call to arrange collection of their relative's body," it says, adding that there is no mechanism for a family member to raise concerns about a request. The letter also addressed the potential impact on the medical workforce. Evidence from the Netherlands suggests "doctors feel pressurised when dealing with patient requests for assisted deaths, meaning that doctors may end up having involvement despite it being against their principles, because they want to help their patients". Doctors' letter highlight concerns about the risk to: Patients Does not necessitate treatment of depression or other remediable factors; does not protect against risk of coercion, particularly for women and the elderly; does not ensure that the assessment panel must meet the patient; will widen social inequalities, adversely affecting the socioeconomically deprived; does not take account of the inadequacies of assessing medical prognosis. Families Does not necessitate any involvement of families. The first they may know is when they are called to come and collect the body; assumes that an assisted death is 'better' than a well-managed natural death but there is little or no evidence in the literature for this assertion. Palliative care Makes it a legal right for patients to access assisted dying, but does not mandate a comparable right to be able to access other end of life services; means that patients may choose assisted dying because palliative care provision is inadequate • Places palliative care consultants (a speciality in which 80% of doctors are opposed to assisted dying) at the heart of delivering the services; ignores the fact that the UK is currently ranked higher for its palliative care services than any country that delivers assisted dying and the fact that countries that introduce assisted dying almost invariably see a decline in the quality of their palliative care services. The medical workforce Does not adequately recognise the risk of harm to doctors from delivering assisted dying; is unclear whether assisted dying should be considered a 'treatment'. Provision of adequate care Proposes a panel which is not a multidisciplinary team and will not know the patient; proposes use of drugs which are not regulated or approved and does not mandate any monitoring of their complications.
