That’s not a mandate for annexation!

Annexing a country then saying you are now going to take part in our election, of an invading nation, is not a mandate that's just pure and simple political incarceration, a mandate is decided by the electorate of the annexed nation, and there is no statute of limitations on annexation so it is never too late to alter your fate, where does it say you have a certain amount of time to lodge a complaint, I must have missed that in the small print, they must of run out of ink, that’s because no time period has ever been democratically set, so it is never too late to adjust and correct, only a democratic vote is consent to annexation, a situation which must be allowed for the historic Welsh nation, because of Longshanks invasion and occupation, then Henry the 8th's laws in Wales act interpretation, yet taking by force is not a mandate that is only coercion and manipulation, and just because it happened a long time ago is no validation, as it is still alive and well, an active annexation, because of this Wales is still controlled today by the majority English nation, as England's possession, a living and breathing annexation that needs resolution and modernization or it will continue to influence the next generation, the continued incarceration of the Welsh people's nation, with no democratic consent to provide validation.


Why do you suppose that English is the Dominant Language in Wales and not Welsh? Because Wales was Colonized by England, as with all English Colonized Countries around the World!

​To suggest that Wales is no longer a Colony because then it was Annexed, is Nonsensical, this is like saying because a prisoner has been moved to a different named prison, with a different set of rules, but still not allowed the option of getting out, so freedom, that he is no longer a prisoner, even though he is not allowed the option of his freedom at any point??... 


King James I of the Stuarts (1566-1625) was never the King of an Independent Scotland just a Puppet of the English Crown, Scotland was last fully Independent with Robert the Bruce in the 14th Century


The Tudor name was a Vassal of England after Longshanks, the Tudors had little to do with Wales, Henry VIII Dad was Born in an English Held Castle in Wales is the only Connection

So how did England start and maintain its world colonization project?

It started with the very violent and bloody conquering and coercion of the Celtic Nations then using the same model eventually went around the world to Anglicize other Nations through their Language and Laws Imposed by Force. However, due to the UN after world War II colonization was frowned upon by bigger powers in the world that had then developed such as the USA who promoted decolonization, which shrunk England's Empire, but England had also created the Common Wealth for previous colonies to maintain their influence, if not direct rule, 'head of state', for example. In order to maintain direct power over the UK or Britain, England's closest other territories, in the new world order, England (London) suggested to the UN that the UK or Britain was One Nation or Country meaning that the Celtic Nations are not real Nations but essentially just regions of the UK or Britain of course still controlled by England in London. It is to England's advantage not to clarify England as a Nation or Country as a separate entity within the UK, because if that were the case they could not use the term UK to control the Celtic Nations through England.

The Annexation of Wales in the 14th century does not have a Statute of Limitations so does Not have a Prescribed Period by the UN, and to have a Mandate for Annexation the aggressor must have a Democratic Vote to provide specific Consent, which has never been allowed in Wales by London, England. Forcibly Stealing some one's Land and then saying now you can vote in our elections, even though you are a minority so will make no difference, whether you like it or not, is not a Mandate it is Coercion.

You know when you have been fully Annexed and Colonized because that then leads to Oppression and when you are Oppressed you cannot say NO, say for example the Industrial Revolution (1769-1840) in the North of England which needed a specific long burning coal only found in South Wales to Fuel the Industrial Revolution, so England just came in and took the Welsh Coal using the Welsh people as their poverty wage Labourers, they had no choice to say NO. The Chartist's and Rebecca Uprising in Wales was a Rebellion against England because as we know England has always been the UK State due to their Majority MPs.

Wales has a right to a Self-determination vote because of Decolonization Laws by the UN, it is clearly Discriminatory to allow Self-determination to other Colonized Nations of England, or anyone else, but not for Wales who were Colonized through Edward Longshanks, the first Norman King to see himself as English, in the the 13th century. Who then Colonized Wales by Building Castles that only the English could live in, with the Welsh living on the outside in their own Country!

How can this be 'UN Equal Rights' if certain Nations are arbitrarily Excluded, although London are on the UN permanent security council, which might well explain this particular Distinction of primarily only Colonized Nations outside of the so called 'West' having rights?

Indeed, just because the Annexation of Wales (1542) was done in the Past, does Not mean that it is in the Past, as Wales is Still effectively Undemocratically Annexed Today in the Present because of 1542 (& Edward Longshanks 13th Century). English Annexation is why you still hear the term 'England & Wales' as one Unequal unit Today. An Issue Only becomes the Past Once it has been Rectified, so you can then Move On and Leave it in the Past.If an Old House had a Leaky Roof in the 16th Century, and Still has a Leaky Roof now in the 21st Century, the Issue is Not in the Past it is in the Present! And Yes for any Nation being Forcibly and Undemocratically Annexed it is a Big Problem for that Nation as you then Lose Control of your Destiny, it does not matter that it happened so long ago as the effects of that Annexation are Still felt Today. Think if your Nation was Forcibly Annexed by another Nation without any Democratic Consent to this Day! The Only Reason that this Welsh Annexation was able to be Buried for So Long is because London Control the UK Media (in all its forms including Publishing), Wales is not allowed any Independent Media, but now with the Internet, outside of London Control, it can finally be Exposed and Easily Evidenced. As the Welsh continued Annexation cannot be Validated by other Countries Acknowledging the Annexation and Accepting it, if they do Not Know that Wales was and still is Annexed in the first place. No one can Validate something they have Not been made aware even exists? And if it has Not been Specifically Acknowledged, Opened up to Debate, and then Officially Accepted by the International Community, it remains illegal. The Example of a Legal Annexation being Texas which Consented to its Annexation by the USA in 1845.

Wales was Initially Physically Colonised & Annexed in the 13th Century by Edward Longshanks (Edward the 1st of England) who Defeated Llywelyn ap Gruffydd the Last Sovereign Monarch of Wales (you have to Physically Annex a Country First before you can Annex their Judicial System, Laws of Wales Acts 1536 & 42, otherwise how do you Enforce or Maintain your Imposed Laws). The Oxford English Dictionary Definition of Oppressionprolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority. To Clarify, England as a separate Ethnicity and Nationality to the Celtic Nations Control UK Law & Policy through their Majority 533 English MPs, a System set up by England to Favour England's Interests.

To Confirm, English Military Annexation of Wales in the 13th Century by Edward Long shanks, then in 1542 by Henry VIII, Annexation and Incorporation are the Same thing when done Unilaterally, whether that is Land or a people placed into someone else's Legal System, by Annexing their freedom to Choose, using Force, as who would argue for threat of death. As Russia could use the same lame argument as London by saying they did not Annex the Crimea, they Incorporated it? Although even if London say that Henry VIII was not Annexation as it was into a Legal System, although it was done to Wales without Consent, Wales still remain Militarily Annexed due to Edward Longshanks anyway, indeed without this Military Control (Annexation by Longshanks) Henry VIII could not have Imposed his English Judicial System onto Wales.


Forced Annexation will always be Annexation, the same as stealing will always be stealing, for Example the Elgin Marbles from Greece, you can try to justify it all you want, 'they are safer in London', 'we saved them', but when all is said and done they are stolen. This would also apply the Crimea Peninsula, now Russia will say that they had a democratic vote therefore the Crimea is theirs and no longer Annexed. However, the initial act was Annexation, so stealing, then gaining control to then affect any democratic process, so no matter what supposed justifications apply afterwards makes no difference as Crimea will always be known as an Annexed Land in the next Hundred Years or the next Thousand Years as it was initially Stolen, this also applies to Wales in the continued absence of a Free Democratic Vote.

 Any Celtic Nations Self-Determinaton Referendum should be Decided in a Neutral UN Court for a more guaranteed unbiased Decision, if London refuse then there is Obviously a Reason for that.


There are very few positives to being Colonized then Annexed, but in the case of England because they then Colonized and Conquered many territories around the world afterwards they then made English a World Wide Language. This means that because of English Colonization most Welsh people speak English, a World Language, mainly because London England also Colonized America now the most influential and powerful nation on the planet. So the Welsh Language although amazingly important to Wales in a Cultural Context, but is futile to try make it a live language in Wales as Welsh in not even the most common language in Wales because of historic English Colonization. The idea that an average Welsh person would try to learn fluent Welsh to eventually replace English, a world wide language, or even compliment it, is silly in the extreme, the Evidence being that, it is, and has, not ever happened in Wales, so you will be putting in a lot of time & effort for no return, such as a Million Fluent Welsh Speakers by 2050. It is very difficult to learn a language fluently, and it is only if there are substantial benefits to people that they will under take this arduous journey, which is why many people take the time & effort to learn English because it is a world wide language. The Welsh language is protected so is good for Culture and will remain in our place names, national anthem, taught in schools, and heritage. Wales Needs to Focus on Why we do Not Speak Welsh in Wales, and that is Welsh Annexation by England, the issues off that Annexation are Lack of any Meaningful & Consistent Power on UK Wide Law & Policy Making Decisions to this Day, this must be the Focus of the Welsh Government to Empower Wales and the Welsh people. If you are a Unionist party promote a UK Nations Veto Vote, if you are Plaid Cymru promote Independence, and most importantly the reasons why, which all comes to down to Welsh Annexation by Longshanks in the 13th Century taking Power from Wales and the Welsh People and placing it Firmly in London England. Look at the Cause of the Problem Not the Symptoms of the Problem.

When discussing this Nebulous term of the "British Empire" in Welsh schools there must beContext, otherwise Wales gets shafted twice, first because they themselves were subjugated and exploited to do London's bidding with little or no benefit to Wales or the Welsh people of Colonialism (only the Wealthy English descended landowners in Wales who owned Welsh slate & coal mines for example, with the local Welsh people working for pittance wages in gruelling poverty conditions, to provide the coal to fuel the Empire, rail & steam ships, for Example), then after the so called British Empire they get shafted again by then being blamed Equally with London England, so then have to take responsibility for something they had no say in. For Example, apart from Wales being Annexed by England anyway, in England's developing parliament Wales had 27 MPs (most of them wealthy English landowners in Wales), England had 513 MPs. So how would it be possible for a Subjugated Nation to develop their own agenda or direction on slavery and colonialism? Indeed, many people have documented that it was the initial Subjugation & Coercion of the Celtic Nations by London England that set the Blueprint for London to then spread out abroad and gain control of other people's lands to expand their own Kingdom & Territories.

                                                                                                    The British Empire

Is it possible to be the oppressed and the oppressor? Well put simply, no, as by definition the oppressed do not have the authority or the autonomy to act individually away from the central controlling monarchy, so it’s impossible to have a different agenda or policy because the oppressor does not know the meaning of equality, if they did you wouldn’t be oppressed in the first place, so know your place, as there are consequences to face, it’s an open and shut case, despite all the attempts to fight off invasion once you are subject to subjugation you then become part of the system of domination, as a Celtic person I know what it’s like to be under someone else’s knee, and their authority, so I come with an empathy, when every avenue is blocked to finally break free creating a dependent psychology and a distorted identity you’re a hostage to history, I know this because you are me, and that’s why I offer my sincerest apology.


Just because Edward Longshanks 1239-1307 (the Scottish Hammer) created an English Empire by Conquering and Subjugating the Celtic Nations through Force of Numbers, does Not then make it a British Empire as the Central Force & Control is still England from London.

(The main ingredient of Empire is always Control, if you want to know who's Empire it is, then look at who is ultimately in Control).

Wales as a Nation have Never been allowed a Self-Determination Vote from London. Ultimately 'Consent' is Key to any Self-Determination particularly in a so called "Democracy" otherwise a Nation is essentially being held 'Hostage' (Wales). But a Mother State must 'FREELY OFFER' a Self-Determination Vote, Not have to be Dragged out of them, otherwise it is 'Not Freely Allowing Self-Determination' but placing 'Numerous Obstacles' in the way, and then still Continuing to say NO (Scotland Second Referendum after Brexit, for Example).It Cannot be the Responsibility of the Oppressed to Assert the Subject of Consent with their Oppressor as by Definition they do Not have that Power, that's like asking the Hostage to Discuss the Issue of Consent with their Kidnapper?It is the Legal and Moral Responsibility of the person actively Holding someone Captive Without Direct Consent to Prove (to the International Community) that they are Not a Kidnapper, as they are the one's potentially Breaking the Law (International Laws), Not the person being held Captive in a Controlled Environment, as that Controlled Environment by Definition will Limit any means to Express a Concern, or Change their Situation.

Just on the subject of Welsh Independence, the right to self-determination is different to independence, as self-determination is about Choosing your future whether it is yes or no, the consequence of that decision is whether independent/ staying the same or any other variant, but that is a different set of circumstances, self-determination is about the Right  to Choose and what ever decision comes off that is about the Outcome that will then be required after that Choice. Indeed, if London's Selected Polls suggest that Wales does not want independence why not just let the Welsh people Choose their own future as a recognized territorial Nation in a so called Democracy, as according to London they will clearly win anyway? Polls are subject to many variants, such as, Who is asking the question? What is the size of the survey? What the question is? Where are they are asking the question? Who they are asking the question too? Who is collating the figures and data, and how?The only Hundred Percent sure way to ascertain an opinion is to have a live ReferendumSo, it is not allowing the Choice of self-determination that is flies in the face of international legislation and fairness, not the Outcome of that Choice. For me as a Democrat I do not mind what result is concluded as long as the Choice has been provided to the Welsh people by London allowing a Democratic Decision (through their 533 MPs) to finally provide Consent of the Welsh people and Nation.

Indeed, to say that Only Colonization and Annexation after the Charter of the United Nations in 1945 is Invalid is incorrect, as Decolonization by Definition would mean Decolonising Nations that were Conquered and Annexed before 1945. As you Cannot Decolonize something that has not already been Colonized or Annexed in the first place. And as London own the UK Media (which is UK & Worldwide) people do not know that Wales is still Annexed, or even was Annexed in the first place, without any Democratic Consent to this day, so it is impossible to gain International Recognition of continued Welsh Annexation when the international community do not even know about it? No international community member has ever stated specifically that Welsh Annexation has been recognised as valid, why, because they do not specifically know about it as it has never been made openly available for debate by London. You cannot Validate what you do not even know exists? Oxford English Dictionary Definition of Recognition- 'acknowledgement of the existence, validity, or legality of something'. You cannot recognise to offer validity something that has not been openly exposed to be considered to then be recognised? As seeming to Hide something is the Opposite to Recognition. Indeed, Wales have no independent Media so cannot speak up for themselves, a Catch 22 position for Wales, yet again. 

Devolution has No Effect on UK Wide Decision Making in a Four Nation Sovereign State, and is Not Self-Determination as the powers allowed are Determined by the Mother state who can also Unilaterally choose to hold back the Main Levers of Power at their Discretion. Essentially keeping the Celtic Nations Captive under London Control but then Labelling it "Ongoing Self-Determination". The international community asserts 'Self-Determination' only (Internal or External) without inserted Caveats such as "Ongoing".

    The Laws of Wales Act 1536-1542 (London call it the 'Acts of Union' to try to give the impression of Consent) Undemocratically Formally Annexed Wales to this Day

So Why is it so Important for London to Deny that Wales is an Ongoing Colony? Well because of New UN Laws (1945) on Decolonization London could well lose Wales, the same UN Legislation that helped to ensure that countries like India (1947), who had also been Previously Colonized, were given Independence (or at least the Choice to Decide). If London can Deny that Wales was Colonized then Wales would not come under the UN Decolonization Program, even though the Colonization of Wales is Easily Evidenced with Edward Longshanks in the 13th Century, then after Colonization was Firmly established (with the Ring of Iron or Iron Ring of Castles) Wales was eventually Formally Annexed by Henry VIII in 1536-1542. If you were wondering, when a Nation had been Annexed Previous to the UN Laws in 1945 it still comes under the new UN Law to prevent Annexation, for Example, Hawaii Annexed by the USA in 1898 but allowed a Referendum in 1959 because of the UN Laws Banning continued Annexation and so preventing Self-determination. To Clarify, Wales has always been a Nation and Country, that was Conquered through Threat and Force, and also Not just a State, Province or Region, with an Historic Distinct English and Welsh border, Offa's Dyke built in 785 AD.


73) a) to Ensure, with due Respect for the Culture of the Peoples Concerned, their Political, Economic, Social, and Educational 'Advancement', their Just Treatment, and their Protection against Abuses;

74) “Members of the United Nations also agree that their policy in respect of the territories to which this Chapter applies, no less than in respect of their metropolitan areas, must be based on the general principle of 'Good-Neighbourliness', due account being taken of the interests and well-being of the rest of the world, in social, economic, and commercial matters.”

The Charter of the United Nations affirmed its ‘respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples

                                                     INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (ICCPR)

According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR), ‘[a]ll peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.'[i]


The UN Charter clarifies two meanings of the term self-determination:

First, a state is said to have the right of self-determination in the sense of having the right to choose freely its political, economic, social, and cultural systems.

Second, the right to self-determination is defined as the right of a people to constitute itself in a state or otherwise freely determine the form of its association with an existing state.

Both meanings have their basis in the charter (Article 1, paragraph 2; and Article 55, paragraph 1). With respect to dependent territories, the charter asserts that administering authorities should undertake to ensure political advancement and the development of self-government (Article 73, paragraphs a and b; and Article 76, paragraph b)


UN on Annexation

Annexation—the acquisition of territory through the threat or use of force—whether realised in practice and in fact (de facto) or through the formal extension of authority by law (de jure), is strictly prohibited under international law, and is a violation of the United Nations (UN) Charter. The prohibition of annexation constitutes a peremptory norm of general international law, meaning it represents a central pillar of the international legal order. Changes to territory or title resulting from annexation have no legal effect.


SECESSION (Self-Determination within an Existing State) as a Last Resort is considered by the UN when the Mother State does not Legitimately represent the people's interests, 533 English MPs in the UK (English) Parliament, for Example. Wales is Both a Colonised Nation and have No Legitimate representation in the UK Parliament with only 40 MPs in a Majority Vote System imposed by London, and Never allowed a Self-Determination Vote from London through these 533 English MPs, with Wales being a Different Race & Ethnicity to England having an Historically recognised National Territorial Boundary, that would be Decided through Democracy (the Preservation of the Celtic Nations Borders that Predates the Political term of the UK). Obviously if independent Wales can Fulfil the Criteria via the Montevideo Convention of a State. Of course London could introduce a specific UK Nations Veto Vote to promote Self-Determination with UK Nations to prevent further UK Disruption in the Future, but I suspect Greed of Power & Influence will not allow London to do that.

                                                                      London's Definition of Annexation when Concerning Wales

​London's Definition of Annexation, Incorporation- the inclusion of something as part of a whole

​Actual meaning of Annexation,Annexation-the action of annexing something, especially territory. (in international law) The acquisition of legal sovereignty by one state over the territory of another, usually by occupation or conquest.

London call the Formal Judicial Annexation of Wales through the UnilateralLaws of Wales Acts 1536-1542 the Acts of Union to try to Hide the Annexation Word and give the False Impression of a Consenting Union, as if Wales were in a Position to say NO to Henry VIII having already been Initially Physically Conquered, Colonised and Annexed by Edward Longshanks in the 13th Century. Whether you Unilaterally Annex or Incorporate Land without Consent and then Unilaterally Impose your Own Laws through Force or the Threat of Force after you have fully Subdued those people & Lands it still has the same meaning, that's like saying Russia Incorporated the Crimea into Russia in 2014, but that's OK because it was "Incorporated" Not Annexed? London using Semantics and Wordplay similar to Moscow saying that the Ukraine War (2022) for Example was a 'Special Operation' but not a 'War', to try to minimise its impact by reducing the wording, in an attempt to make it Less Emotive and more Acceptable.

Historical Annexation before the UN Laws will Always Remain an issue Unless it is Democratically Voted for by the Conquered people as it Continues to Deny Self-Determination which is against current UN Law anyway. To Confirm, Unilateral Annexation without Specific Consent (either initially taken by Force or without Democratic Consent in Modern times) is Stealing, whether you Steal a loaf of bread, someone's Land, or even someone's Country it is still Stealing, which has always been illegal, Then as Now. Even in Hawaii Annexed before the UN laws on Annexation, the 1993 Apology Resolution by the U.S. Congress concedes that "the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and [...] the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum". Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining), in international law, is the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state, usually following military occupation of the territory. 

Although, judging by the recent Official London proposed 'UK Internal Markets Bill 2020Click for Link, regarding Brexit, that London are even Officially Publicly Contemplating using (as an apparent Threat to the EU in current negotiations, which essentially could be seen as a Tool of Black Mail, give us what we want in this Negotiation Otherwise we will Enact this already Prepared illegal Legislation, and then to 'Amend it after it is Not Needed, or if it did Not Work', to try to save Reputation, 'Best of Both worlds'), which by their Own Admission (which is Unprecedented as they Usually just Deny or Ignore, but Uniquely this time the other side also have their own Unimpeded Media), Breaks International Law (as it goes against what they had previously agreed with the EU), provides further easy Evidence to suggest that London have Little or No Regard for International Law anyway, unless of course it Benefits them (although I suspect the International Community will have Different Ideas and are Watching Closely). At this point I would like to Formerly Welcome the International Community into the Celtic Nations World, if only for a brief moment (with London and therefore England, acting 'Unilaterally' Without Other Internationally Recognised Nations Consent).

I understand the UN's position on Self-Determination and Secession (as a Last Resort) as ‘if every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation, and peace, security and well-being for all would become even more difficult to achieve. However, Territorial Integrity is not a concern for the UK with the Celtic Nations on the island of Britain as they are already Historically Recognised Territorial Nations in a Four Nation State, in Fact it is the other way around, as the London version of the UK as a Country Defiles the Territorial Integrity of Wales & Scotland on the Island of Britain who Predate the Idea of the UK from London, with the UK as a Country Not Preserving the Territorial Integrity of the Celtic Nations on the island of Britain, by essentially Deleting Out their Borders, through England's 533 MP's in the UK Parliament, to be Replaced with the Political Idea of a UK at a Later Date by London. Although in doing so they also delete out England's borders, but in deleing all borders in the UK to make a Country called the UK, England have essentially extended their borders across all the Celtic Nations as they still control the UK from the UK Parliament in London with their 533 English MP's. The UK as a Country makes perfect sense for England and their Interests. So England could be an independent England and have their affairs controlled by London (leaving the Celtic Nations to Govern themselves independently), or they could Label the UK as One Country and then get to Control the whole of the UK from London, an easy decision to make if you are London. Obviously if independent Wales & Scotland can Fulfil the Criteria via the Montevideo Convention of a State, with the Celtic Nations on the island of Britain proven Governance even with restricted powers since Devolution 20 years ago (proof to the UN) in already Centuries old Territorial Nations so are Highly Unlikely to be Failed States as they already Exist with a Government, Recognised Internal Democracy, and Historical Nation Status. "Ongoing Self-Determination" as opposed to "Constitutive self-determination", is an Oxymoron (contradictory), as this allows the Mother state to not allow an independence referendum and keep any Nations essentially held Hostage without any direct Consent, but then try to assert that they are allowing Self-Determination but on the Mother Nations own terms which by definition is not Self-Determination. It is Not a Free Association until Consent has been Directly Democratically Provided.

As you have to Conquer and Colonise first, then over time gain Complete Control, then you can move onto 'Full Annexation' of that Colony through Imposing your Own Laws and Systems from Top Down, using English Military Reinforcements for their Governing Officials As and When required, who of course were only a stones throw away at any given time, just over the border, as Wales is England's Oldest 'Ongoing' Colony an Obvious Fact Continuously Avoided (No Platformed) by the London British Media?. To Clarify further and this is crucial, but for London and therefore England's Imperialist ambitions Wales (& Scotland) left Unimpeded would be Independent Sovereign Territorial Nations to this day, as they were before London's ongoing interference. Even the English Royal Tudor name became a Vassal of London after Edward Longshanks Conquered Wales in the 13th Century. Indeed, Even directly after the Act of Union in 1707 the Island of Britain was Controlled Directly from London through their Overwhelming English MPs, Scotland was, in the new United Parliament (Act of Union 1707) only to get 45 MPs, just one more than the English region of Cornwall, Wales had 27 Welsh MPs in the English Parliament after their Annexation in 1542, with 513 English MPs in a Majority Vote System, (1801 Ireland were forced into the UK Parliament and given 100 MPs most of which were Protestant so Favoured England). Does all this English Favouritism and Control of UK Wide Sovereignty sound Familiar 300 years on to the present Day?!... Coercive control refers to a pattern of controlling behaviours that create an unequal power dynamic in a relationship. These behaviours give the perpetrator power over their partner, whilst also making it difficult for them to leave. To Clarify, the Power of the English Monarch is Centred in London England, as the other Monarchs of the Celtic Nations were Located in their Nations before being "replaced" by the English Monarch. Conquering or Subduing a Nation does not mean that you are their Monarch it just means that you do not allow a Subdued Nation to have their own Monarchy back. Also to say that because of Bloodline that the English Monarch is British is a bit of stretch from London to say the least, as the English Monarch's Bloodline also included Norman (French), William of Orange (Netherlands) and the Hanover Dynasty (German) but no one is suggesting that the English Monarch is also the Monarch of the Netherlands, France and Germany as well, whilst being based firmly in London, England the Seat of Power for the English Crown. To Confirm, UK Sovereignty is Controlled in London, although Owned by all UK Nations and People, so the Celtic Nations are Not Sovereignless Nations, they have Equal Sovereignty with England as their is No Hierarchy of Sovereignty regardless of size of Country or Nation in any Union that makes up a Sovereign State such as the UK, as all Nation's Separate Sovereignties (Independence) have been Pooled into One, giving each Nation an Equal Share of the Overall UK Sovereignty.

Indeed, how is it possible for Wales as a Colonised, Annexed and Conquered Nation to have any Meaningful say on a so called British Empire (& to Clarify the Transatlantic Slave Trade was in effect by England way before the Act of Union), when Wales only had 27 Welsh MPs in the English Parliament after their Formal Annexation in 1536-1542, even after the Act of Union with Scotland in 1707 Scotland were only afforded 45 MPs from London, with England having 513 MPs in London's Favoured Majority Vote System (in 1801 Ireland were Forced into the UK Parliament and given 100 MPs most of which were Protestant so Favoured England). So the UK Democratic System was Evidently Rigged by London to Favour Anglo-Saxon England from the Beginning, by Railroading all the Celtic Nations in England's Majority Vote System, a System that still exists today, Ironically with roughly the same Numbers. The Impotency of the Celtic Nations position Demonstrated by the Millions of Deaths of Celtic people in the Irish Potato Famine (1845-52), for Example.

Definition of colonization: the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area. Annexation is more straight forward, hence a nation invades->occupies another nation with the "open" intention of annexing its territory, subduing its people and plundering its resources.

The Collins Dictionary States, 'Colonialism is the Practice by which a Powerful Country Directly Controls Less Powerful Countries and Uses their Resources to Increase its Own Power and Wealth'. England first Invaded, Colonised and Conquered (through their Vast Numbers), then eventually Subdued Wales, only once this control was in place, could the move to Annexation take place (you can't Annex a place that is out of your control as you will not be able to impose your Laws).

​The term 'Annex' is Defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as, 'Add an Extra or Subordinate part, Add to One's Territory by Appropriation'. To 'Appropriate' means, 'Take For One's Own Use Without Permission' (Colonialism in all but Name). Cambridge English Dictionary meaning of Annex-annex definition: 1. to take possession of an area of land or a country, usually by force or without permission. As online in the UK the Oxford Definition of Annex & Appropriate seems to have altered from my Eleventh Edition Revised 2008 Oxford Dictionary Book. Appropriation- the act of appropriating or taking possession of something, often without permission or consent ( uses Oxford Dictionary). I was unaware that the Oxford English Dictionary Definition of Annex and to Appropriate had some how Changed Online, I cannot find anything stating such a Change??

Both Colonising and Annexing Involve the 'Same Outcome and Process' of Taking (by Force) and then Controlling another People's Land without their Consent, they are Both Methods of 'Nation Building', by Force and without Consent, but by another Name.

Annexation and/or Colonialism' both Ultimately Involve the Same Process of 'Imposing on' or 'Subduing' other People 'Without their Consent' by Force, as the 'Opposite' of Stealing another Nation 'Without Consent' is either allowing 'Independence, or having Democratic Consent' to be part of the Annexing and/or Colonising force. Indeed, then Wales was Forced into the Act of Union 1707 (again without democratic consent as they had already been conquered and then Annexed). 

The English Establishment are Great Shakespearean Wordsmith's, indeed English is their own developed Language, as a result they will try to weave you in all kinds of spiderwebs, sometimes even using Complicit Welsh people (Uncle Tom's) to support their narrative. But stay Focused on the Outcome and the Process do not let yourselves Succumb too, or be Distracted by Noise.

Process- Stealing Land by Force without Consent

Outcome- Ultimately Owning and Controlling that Land 

To suggest that Wales is no longer a Colony because then it was Annexed, is Nonsensical, this is like saying because a prisoner has been moved to a different named prison, with a different set of rules, he is no longer a prisoner??

To Clarify, the first English Empire initially began with Edward Longshanks in the 13th century (along with subsequent invasions by various English Monarchs), and then culminating in Oliver Cromwell in 1651 after the English and British Civil War ('Wars of the Three Kingdoms' 1639-1651 mainly because of England Imposing Religion, and the Primacy of England Click for Link) with Cromwell Officially becoming 'Lord Protector of the Common Wealth of England, Scotland and Ireland' after Defeating the Scots at Dunbar in 1650, and also the Irish in Ireland. These Powers over Scotland, Ireland (and Wales, who were already Annexed by England) then passed onto Charles the 2nd in 1660, which Outlasted Cromwell to Form the Future of Britain and Ireland with all Powers Based in London. As such there could Not be a 'British Empire', but only an 'English Empire', as the Central Control and Power over the Celtic Nations was already in London, within the English State, 'Before and After' the Coerced (Coerced because they owned them) Act of Union in 1707 (because of the Threat from France). As the Celtic Nations did not come together with England as a Consenting Union with Equal Powers in 1707, as they had already been Conquered (so all the Celtic Nations had No Free Choice to Decline the London Offer of Union, in 1542 Wales, 1707 Scotland and 1801 Ireland). Indeed, there are not many Nations that would Voluntarily Choose to be Controlled by another Nation, in another Nation's Capital, unless they had to, because they were already Conquered, actually why do you suppose Scotland and Ireland went to War with England (Wars of the Three Kingdoms 1639-1651) in the first place, to try to prevent England from Controlling their Nations (so Clearly there was No Consent). 

So Evidently an English Empire Not a British Empire as Frequently Asserted by London in an attempt to Share the Blame of Colonialism (and give the Impression of a larger Unified Force, at that time to France), the Same Colonialism England (London) did to Scotland, Ireland and Wales to Create the term 'Britain', and then Created the World Wide term of 'Commonwealth' after that, using the Same Colonial Model used on the Celtic Nations. So the Central Controlling Power, Brain and Force that Created the English Empire, which Created and Controlled Britain (then Named by London the British Empire even though the Celtic nations had no say in decision making), who then Created the World Wide Commonwealth, was always in London (England), an 'English Empire' (Regardless of the Inevitable London Spin, who own the UK Media so it Cannot be Formerly Challenged,for Example mentioning the Laws of Wales Act 1536-1542 but never mentioning that it was in effect Annexation, and suggesting that Scotland were an independent free state able to give free unimpeded Consent before the Act of Union in 1707, Ignoring the Alien Act 1705 Embargo from London on Scotland until they Submitted to the Act of Union in 1707). And of course if there was actually a 'Common Wealth' in Britain then there would be Equal Development when Comparing the Celtic Nations to England (which there is Not).

Some people say (usually in the Majority Group) move on stop talking about the past, as we are now in the 21st Century, when discussing the 13th Century and Edward Longshanks Initial Conquering and Colonising of Wales, along with Subsequent English Monarchs (then fully Annexed in 1542, by Henry the 8th), but as this Annexation of Wales, without democratic consent, is the Direct Reason that Today Wales is Still Restricted, Owned and Controlled by London, there can be No 'Moving On' until this Situation is Democratically Resolved. Indeed Wales is so 'Linked' with this Past that in order to Understand the Modern Relationship Between Wales and England you have to become an Expert in Medieval History. As you can only 'Move On' from a Situation Once that Situation has been Fully Resolved, so it no longer Effects your Present and Future. Of course in order to Resolve this Non Democratic issue London would have to 'Role the Dice' on losing Wales. Indeed, many people say 'Why do London still seem to think and behave like they still have an Empire, they are Deluded', well yes and no (yes regards world wide, but no regards the British isles). It appears that the reason why London still thinks in Colonial terms is that the Initial Core of their English Empire Still Exists with the Celtic Nations to this day.

To Clarify, this is not to say that author wants Independence for Wales, but what it is to say that the Welsh people should finally be allowed a Fair Democratic Choice to Decide (whilst acknowledging that almost 22% (ONS) of Welsh Residents are English, so may have a natural Conflict of Interest's, which must be addressed, Nation Specific Criteria under the heading of Britishness above, towards the bottom of the page). But the English Establishment will fight you all the way as they do not want to lose Control of Wales (or even risk it by allowing a vote of consent) and risk Unrestricted Competition Directly on their Doorstep. 

As Wales is Widely Acknowledged to have been England's 'First Colony' (Mainly Due to Close 'Geography', with the Whole Eastern Length of Wales Directly Bordering England, from North to South for 160 miles, and being Vastly Outnumbered, then as now), for those who say that Wales is No Longer an Ongoing Colony of England, can you please give an Exact 'Date and Time' when this Colonial Status was apparently Removed?? To Clarify, the Welsh Devolution Referendum in 1997 was Not an independence Referendum (Indeed a Devolution vote was only allowed to Wales as London had to offer a Devolution vote to Scotland to try to appease Independence). The result was then Countered in 1998 by the Sewel Convention, which essentially says that ideally we would like the Devolved Celtic Nations Consent but if we do not get, it doesn't matter as we can do it any way, named after Lord Sewel who created it, that allows the London UK Parliament to 'Over Ride' any limited Devolved Decisions 'as and when' without Consent through 'UK Parliamentary Sovereignty' (whilst understanding that '533' MP's out of '650' MP's in the UK Parliament represent English interest's, making it primarily an English Parliament in all but name), so Wales Essentially Still Ultimately Controlled from London anyway. So what is the benefit to having a UK parliament that is essentially an English parliament in all but name, well you can legislate on your own nation but also then control and legislate the main levers on the other UK countries, in your nations favour. However, the UK Nations Share UK Sovereignty as a UK Sovereign State it is Not only England's. Moreover, to say that Wales has more MPs per Capita than England (although going from 40 to 32 in 2023 due to boundary review) is an Irrelevant Point, as Regardless the System imposed by London still Favours England's Vast Majority, which is why England have 533 MPs and the Celtic Nations Combined only have 117. Using population bias against the Celtic Nations is clearly unfair because the Celtic nations essentially get deleted out of UK democracy over something they can do nothing about, their population. Indeed, the most recent example (to this text being written) of the Devolved Nation's in UK being Over Ruled by the UK (English) Parliament is in January 2020 when all three of the UK's devolved democratically elected law-making bodies rejected the EU withdrawal agreement (also from the Welsh Government who were last democratically elected in May 2017). The Welsh Government said the bill could let UK ministers change assembly powers without asking Assembly Members.As the implementation on rules on Northern Ireland "have no restrictions" and could be used to modify the assembly's powers without its consent (as you might expect this has had limited coverage on the London British Media and connected regional channels).Further reinforced with EVEL (English votes for English Laws) in 2015, since the SNP (Scottish National Party) began to gain more MP's in the UK Parliament, historically previous to the SNP's rise, mainly since 2011, nearly all of the Scottish MP's in the UK Parliament where member's of the London Political Parties, so where controlled centrally from London (Wales is still controlled by mainly London based Political Parties so does not present as a problem, at the moment). So the English Establishment have created for themselves the best of both worlds, they can make their own decisions affecting England without being interfered with by Scottish MP's, and they can Over Rule Scotland as and when they want through the Sewel Convention (Interfere directly with Scottish Rules), so 'having their Cake and Eating it', hang on that sounds Familiar?... As Wales (& Scotland) are the Threat of being potential 'Competitor's on their Doorstep', so need controlling. To Further Clarify, Wales was Annexed in 1535 by England with the Laws of Wales Act (1535 & 1542) which then imposed English Laws in Wales. The term 'Annex' is Defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as, 'Add an Extra or Subordinate part, Add to One's Territory by Appropriation'. To 'Appropriate' means, 'Take For One's Own Use Without Permission' (Colonialism?). If London try to say that this Act was Repealed then so should the Annexation it caused also be Repealed (Click for Link), this would be Similar to Repealing the Act of Union (1707) but still keeping hold of Scotland (Repeal-to Revoke or Annul). Actually, the 'Prince of Wales' title in the English Royal Family that was brought about by this Annexation still Exists to this day, with Wales still described as a 'Principality of England, the Oxford English Dictionary Definition of a Principality is, 'a State Ruled by a Prince'. Still not sure why out of all the possible Numerous names (Sponsor's) for the Welsh National Stadium, the word 'Principality' was managed to be chosen with all it's Obvious Connotations?? (See p132 of the Free Book Provided above, under 'Should A Prince Of Wales Be Democratically Elected by the Welsh People')? 

Indeed, as with all things the Circle is being complete where English Empire first involved conquering the Celtic Nation's and making them the UK, then going out using the same model to conquer much of the world. But as time has gone on, and London has lost most of it's world wide colonies, the so called "British Empire" (then Labelled by London) has now shrunk and come back to what it was in the beginning, the English Empire, and as with all circles seems to suggest that eventually it will be just England again (as it was in the 11th Century), completing the Full Circle? As the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a sovereign state, with Sovereignty based in London, composed of four constituent countries that extends its sovereignty over a number of associated territories. Strictly speaking, a country is not necessarily the same thing as a sovereign state, they are academically Distinct from each other, as opposed to being used as Generalised ​and Interchangeable terms, a Confusion perpetuated from London, as some sovereign states (including the UK) that are defined as countries maybe actually subdivisions of a sovereign “composite kingdom", the Kingdom of the United Kingdom. UK Sovereignty is owned by all the People's of the UK not just the English (a Social Contract, Thomas Hobbes 1651), the opposite to a singular Monarch directly ruling). To Clarify the Queen of England is Not Sovereign as the Monarchy does not have Supreme Power, the Oxford English Dictionary Definition of Sovereign - a supreme ruler, especially a monarch. As UK Sovereignty is the People's Sovereignty not just the English People's Sovereignty as the Celtic nations cannot help the fact that their populations are significantly smaller than that of England's, they should not be Excluded from their Own UK Sovereignty by something they cannot do anything about. However, a UK Nations Veto Vote could bring Sovereignty back to the Celtic Nations. Indeed, most Unions of Nations (including the UN) have some sort of Veto Vote System, making the UK Union of Nations yet again the Outlier. Along with the Fact that it is Easier and Quicker to gain a Consensus between just 4 Nations (or a 75%, 3 out of 4 Consensus in a Deadlock situation) than the 27 Nations of the EU. But if London again try to Resist Power Sharing then Obviously Independence is the Only Viable Option for Wales and Scotland on the Island of Britain.

The Collins Dictionary States, 'Colonialism is the Practice by which a Powerful Country Directly Controls Less Powerful Countries and Uses their Resources to Increase its Own Power and Wealth' (the term Resources also Refers to it's People as well). The Collins Dictionary States that a Colony is , 'A Colony is a Country which is Controlled by a More Powerful Country'. The Oxford Languages (Oxford Dictionary) Definition of Colony, 'a Group of People of One Nationality or Race Living in a Foreign Place' (Majority Anglo-Saxon & Minority Celtic in the UK as a Whole).The Only way Wales could Lose it's Easily Evidenced Current and Ongoing Colonial Status is for the Welsh People to Finally, for the First Time in their Long History, to be Allowed a Direct and Simplified Democratic 'Clarification Referendum' Choice, to be 'Independent' or 'Stay as a Part of England' (to actually for the First Time Confirm any Democratic Consent to England's continued Historical Dominance over Wales). Whilst being Cognizant of the 22% (ONS 2011) of English people living in Wales, who may have a Different View of Wales than anyone else, due to a Unique 'Conflict of Interest's' (England Own Wales),a Basic Human Instinct Click for Link ', which could be seen as asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas, as Not Many People would 'Voluntarily Vote' to 'Give Away' and/or 'Lose Control' over a large piece of their own acquired land (Wales was Annexed by England in 1535). As English people generally Historically Perceive Wales as theirs (a 'Principality'), no other Nation's people have that Real Terms Perception of Wales, the obvious Conflict of Interest's? If England and Wales had generally similar populations this would even itself out, but as England have 85% of the UK population this is a huge Democratic problem for Wales & the other vastly smaller Celtic Nations (Wales population is 3 Million, Scotland's population 5 Million, N.Ireland's population 1.9 Million & England's population is 55 Million). Furthermore, Obviously in the Ongoing Absence of an Independence (or Not depending on the Outcome) 'Clarification' Referendum to provide specific Democratic Consent, the London English Establishment still do Not have any Democratic Mandate for their Continued Control over Wales. Indeed, although the ongoing Internal Colonialism of Wales (Colonialism turned into Internal Colonialism Now because of being Annexed in 1536 and formed into the a part of the UK), which also happened to the Celtic Nation of the Republic of Ireland before their Independence from the UK in 1922 (1800-1922), (Oxford Reference States, "Internal Colonialism Refers to a Structured Relationship of Oppression and Exploitation Between a Dominant Ethnic Group and one or more". (So Anglo-Saxon & Celtic), Resulting in Easily Evidenced Uneven Development) is more Subtle than most previous Overt Colonialism abroad and usually not as Violent (apart from the Initial Long Drawn Out Subjugation of the Welsh people, after which systems were firmly put in place), crucially as quoted from 'Mahatma Ghandi' (who might know a thing or two about Colonialism) 'Poverty is the Worst Form of Violence'. Actually, for those who say that Wales played it's part in Colonialism as a Subjugated Nation (Master blaming the Servant), of Course whilst Serving, Subordinate to your Master (Not as Equals) you will be doing jobs that you would not normally do, if you had free will (quite clearly they would not even be there but for the London English Establishment's quest for Empire). Indeed how many servants have you ever heard of saying No to their Master's, particularly in a time when the UN or Human Rights did not exist (as Evidenced by the Fact that Wales as an Autonomous Nation and People have Never Forcible Colonised anyone in all it's Numerous Centuries Old History). As we are all happy to take Responsibility for Something we did, but to have the Responsibility Imposed on you from London by Association when it was Not your Decision, most people would find as extremely unreasonable, at best (such as "British" Colonialism, and "Britain" Stealing Important Artefacts such as the Elgin Marbles, for example).

Moreover, for those who Associate Slavery Only with Colonialism (apart from the Fact that Colonialism happened to many Different Races & Creeds, including the Republic of Ireland for Example) regarding the UK, by saying that Colonialism cannot be happening because the Colonised were (or are) not subject to Industrial Slavery. The Mass Industrialisation of Slavery specifically by the London English Establishment in the 17th & 18th Century Transatlantic Slave Trade (First Initiated by John Hawkins 1532-1592), did not involve Nations that had been formerly Colonised at the time. Independent Merchants Traded for Slaves (or Raided Villages) in West Africa to then Sell on as a Commodity at a higher price in places like Jamaica and the America's. So mainly Slavery for "Britain" was more an 'Individual Person Personally Owning and Controlling another Person', where as Colonialism is an actual 'Country Owning and Controlling another Country', they are 'Not Exclusively' Related.​ Furthermore, to Compare the Organised Lynchings and Separate Designated Areas for Black people in the Southern states of America (late 19th and early 20th century) to Britain, is Not Comparable, as Racism happens Differently in Britain. This is Evidenced by the Fact that Overt Organised Lynchings and Separate Designated Areas for Black people did Not Ever Exist in Britain, Discrimination can happen in Different ways in Different Countries, it is more Systemic, Institutional and Subtle in Britain (the Windrush Scandal in 2018 as the most recent example). Indeed, can you think of a British Version of Malcolm X or Martin Luther King that was ever allowed to gain any Prominence in Britain? The Fact that America recently had a Black President for the first time (Barack Obama 2009-2017) and Britain has Never had a Black Prime Minister seems to further Demonstrate this Systemic more Covert approach? To further Clarify, the current UK System actually seems to be Remarkably Similar to the London English Establishment's (British Raj 1858-1947) System Imposed in India? Where local people (although usually hand picked with people sympathetic to British Rule) were eventually put onto Provincial Legislative Councils (Indian Councils Act 1909), and then the following (Government of India Act 1919) that enlarged the Provincial Councils to the Central Legislative Assembly. So a National Assembly for the Indian Nation (Similar to the Devolved Nations of Today in the UK), but even the Limited Powers Devolved to this Assembly had their Purse Strings attached to London (Similar to the Devolved Nations of Today in the UK) with No or very Limited say over Crucial Legislation such as Finance, Law, Politics, Business, Foreign Affairs, Media and Communications, as a whole in India (Similar to the Devolved Nations of Today in the UK). But Don't just take my Word for anything said in this text, 'Look it Up', by using that New Valuable Resource of the Internet. However, can you Still Provide the 'Answer' to the Initial 'Question' of, 'can you please give an Exact 'Date and Time' when this Colonial Status was apparently Removed for Wales'?? See 'Describing the Welsh Relationship with England' under the 'What is Britshness'? heading above. Although the 'Ideal Utopia' would be a United Kingdom where Each Nation and People are Equally Treated with Fairness and Respect. The Harsh Reality is that after 'Three Centuries' and Counting (Since the 'Undemocratic' Imposed Act of Union in 1707, & even well Before this Date for Wales) the 'Evidence Strongly Confirms' (after a 300 Year 'Test Study', which Must be the Longest in History!!) that this will 'Never' Actually Happen, at 'What Point' then, does 'HopeBecome 'Stupidity'?!... 

Just to Clarify and Reiterate, the Overall 'Ruling Establishmentin the UK can only be 'Identified' by who has the 'Ultimate Overall Power' over 'UK Wide Decision Making' (that Ultimately Supersedes all of the UK Nations Regardless of their smaller individual Parliaments (Sewel Convention) who are only allowed very specific and limited powers by the London UK Parliament, with the Purse Strings also ultimately attached to London), as the London based UK Parliament Ultimately Directs all UK Decision Making. Now, as the 'UK London Parliament' currently has '533'English Representative MP's (Member's of Parliament) Allocated to them out of a possible'650' MP's. Indeed, a Scottish or Welsh Based Political Party Cannot run in England to Win any of these English seats, but any English Political Party can run in Wales or Scotland to Win their seats, making English Number's Permanent, and Ring Fenced for only English Political Parties. But also meaning there can Never be a Scottish or Welsh 'Based' Political Party, who's Leader would then be the Prime Minister of the whole UK. Scotland has '59' MP's Allocated (with some Labour or Conservative, & other smaller English parties MP's with their Parties & Leaders Based in London). Wales has '40' MP's Allocated (most are Labour or Conservative, & other smaller English Parties, MP's with their Parties & Leaders Based in London) and Northern Ireland has '18' MP's Allocated (many of which do Not go to the UK Parliament as Republican Irish). So Clearly in any UK Parliament Vote on Decisions Regarding the Whole of the UK, as '533' English MP's are Allocated out of a Total of '650' Allocated UK Wide MP's in the UK Parliament, You Do The Maths!!... So Ultimately appearing to make the 'UK Parliament' an 'English Parliament' in all but name, as 'UK Wide Decisions' are Ultimately made by 'Majority Vote' London Based (Hand Picked as Party Election Candidates) 'English Establishment Representatives' (Just Saying). So what is the benefit to having a UK parliament that is essentially an English parliament in all but name, well you can legislate on your own nation but also then control and legislate the main levers on the other UK nations, in your nation's favour.

Indeed, to Further Consolidate Ultimate UK Power with the advent of Devolution, Crucially the 'Sewel Convention 1998' (in the Scotland Act 1998, Section 28), with the Following 'Scotland Act 2016' & the 'Wales Act 2017', but Crucially both 'Edited' and 'Amended' First by the UK Parliament before being passed through the UK (English) Parliament in London. The Sewel Convention Insert in Section 2 of these Acts allows the UK Parliament the ability to Over Ride Decisions made in the Scottish or Welsh Parliaments, (also allowed anyway with 'UK Parliamentary Sovereignty') even on Matters Specifically Devolved to Scotland and Wales'? The Sewel Convention, which does allow for a questioning of decisions, but the UK government can still do what they want anyway because of Sovereignty. Appearing to make the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments essentially Ultimately almost Irrelevant (Tokenism) on UK Wide Decision Making. To Further Clarify, Quote from the Sewel Convention 1998, "The Sewel Convention applies when the UK Parliament wants to legislate on a matter within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales or Northern Ireland Assembly. Under the terms of the Convention, the UK Parliament will “Not Normally” do so without the relevant devolved institution having passed a legislative consent motion" (the Word "Normally" is Crucial). The Sewel Convention has been further backed up in Law within Britain with the Scotland Act (2016) and the Wales Act (2017), but still means the same thing. Quote from the Wales Act 2017, as well as inserted in the Scotland Act 2016, "But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not "Normally" legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Assembly" (Again the Word "Normally" is Crucial). So the London UK Parliament can Legally (of course they make the Laws) Over Ride decisions if they want, at any time, without the Devolved Nation's Consent. To Further Clarify, the Sewel Convention is also known as the 'Legislative Consent Motion' (by the London UK Government), with the subsequent Wales & Scotland Acts within Britain, but many people argue this is Blackmail (Coercion)? To Clarify, the London UK Government say 'you have to consent to us Over Ruling you (at any given time) or you do not get Devolution or more Powers'. So in order to get Devolution or more Powers for Scotland and Wales they had to consent to the UK Parliament being able to Over Rule their Decisions even on Devolved matters, in essence 'You Must agree to this or you Won't get that'. The Sewel Convention, which does allow for a questioning of decisions, and which tries to Imply that Consent is Required from the Devolved Nations, although it also has a clause stating, that they would "Normally" want consent, an Opt Out clause, but the UK government can still do what they want anyway because of Sovereignty, remembering that the UK (English) Parliament has 533 English Representative MP's out of 650. Meaning that the UK (English) Parliament always Supercede any Devolved Nations Decisions. As Logically there can Only be a 'British Establishment' or a 'UK Parliament' if all UK Nations have 'Equal Power' (to Compromise) in the UK London Parliament when Implementing Decisions at a UK Level (not just Ultimately the Overwhelming Majority English Representatives or Implementing Covert Inserts in UK Law), which given the current obvious Systemic Number Differentials in the UK Parliament is Impossible at this stage (although a Veto Vote and/ or Majority Vote, 'the Equal Power to Disagree', in the 'UK Parliament' for all 'Four UK Nations' could Solve this Undemocratic problem, assuming that all Four UK Nations are still together?), I hope this has Clarified this subject area some what? (See 'Describing the Welsh & English Relationship?' under the 'What is Britishness' heading above).

Furthermore, the London English Establishment are Wordsmiths, nothing is accidentally said, so when London Politicians (& Media) Constantly say in the 'National' Interests (the Singular), they are subtly saying in England's Interest, if the statement was to actively reflect all UK Nations, it would be inall the 'Nations' interests (the Plural). This appears to subtly reflect and confirm London's view, that of Britain being just the Nation of England, with the other Celtic Nations simply being Provinces or Regions, there of (so not accepted as Separate Nations and Races)? Which appears to explain why there has never been a Firm Description or Definition of 'Britishness' or 'Englishness' by London, as London seem to want to continue to see them as one and the same (Theirs), which would make sense as London to ultimately control the whole of the UK, be it a Region or another UK Nation, which would make sense as London do ultimately control the UK be it a UK Region or Nation?

Equally, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) who was the one of the main Draftsman of the American Declaration of Independence and the third US President, described the English ('Their Ruling Establishment') in his unedited autobiography regarding his vision of independence from Britain (England), as those Wanting to 'Restrict the Well Being of their Colonies and Limit Economic and Political Growth as they are Threatened by their Potential'"Does this Model of Rule Seem Familiar to Anyone within the Union of the United Kingdom to this Day (2018)"?!!... As Wales (& Scotland) are the potential 'Competitor's on their Doorstep', so need controlling. Indeed if America, Canada, Australia, India, Ireland, New Zealand & Singapore (amongst Other Former Colonies) want a 'Glimpse into what could have been their Future', just look at the Historic Under Development and Restricted Growth on Infrastructure, Finance, Media, Law, Business and Democratic Representation Imposed on Wales & Scotland over the Decades & Centuries to this Day.​ (See 'Wales in Purgatory?' heading above for a Few examples of the Restriction of Welsh Growth and Prosperity over the Decades/Centuries). The 'Irony' being that as stated in Thomas Jefferson's 'OWN' Official Memoranda (Memoirs) which 'He' Wrote at the age of 77, he Reveals that his Ancestors, who Originally Emigrated to America, where Welsh from Snowdon in North Wales (more specifically his Father the most influential person in Thomas Jefferson's early life). Indeed it has been argued that the American Declaration of Independence penned in 1776 'Is and Remains' the Most Potent 'Equality' Legislation that the World has ever seen, as it contains the Words (Permanently Enshrined in their Nations Historic Founding Constitution) that, 'ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL'. It does appear that without this Ethical Power in the Origins of America's Historic Constitutional Legislation, Civil Rights Campaigners such as Malcolm X and Martin Luther King (Notice the Absence of a British Version) could Not have Legally or Morally Linked their Struggle to the 'Core Values' of what it is to Fundamentally be an American, apparently ultimately Culminating in the Election of Barack Obama as the 44th US President in 2008 (Still Waiting for a 'PUBLICLY ELECTED' Black or Asian British Prime Minister) and when Barack Obama did become President, the 'Sky Did Not Fall In' or the 'World Stop Spinning On It's Axis', life just carried on... 

Indeed, again, when it comes to identifying systemic manipulation of any sort regarding any subject matter, if you want to identify the original source, the architect then start your investigation asking one Question, once this one Question can be answered, nine times out of the ten, working backwards from there, the rest will tend to naturally fall into to place, the miracle question is simply 'Who does it Benefit'? So for example, in the case of continued Colonialism, which still results in the ability of London to ultimately restrict the Celtic nations centrally, who does it Benefit?

However, this Situation of restriction and under representation does Not have to be Just Accepted by the people of Wales as a 'UK Nation's Veto Vote System and/or Majority Vote', currently Similar to the European Union (EU) 28 Countries, but Specific to the UK (so the 'Power to Disagree', and halt proceedings Until a Unified UK Compromise is Found, 'Assuming that all Four UK Nations are Still Together'?) in the 'UK Parliament' between the 'Four Nations of the UK' on Areas that Affect the Whole of the UK (such as on the Limited Occasions of Brexit, Brexit Negotiations, Going to War, Universal UK Credit Benefits or Raising of the UK Pension age for example, by Calling a 'Point of Discussion' in the UK Parliament) could be an Obvious Solution, with a 3 out of 4 Nations Majority (75%) Vote as a Backstop to Prevent any possible deadlockThis is not to say that the Veto Vote and/or Majority Vote in the European Union is Perfect, but what it is to say, is that it is more Perfect and Fairer than the current and Historical One Sided System in the United Kingdom, apparently designed to benefit the Majority Population (England). To further Clarify, it is much easier to implement a Veto Vote system with a Back Stop Majority (75%) Vote with only Four Nations, than it is in the currently 28 Nations of the European Union. This Overhaul of the 'Out Dated' Centralised Power Structures in the UK appears to be the Only Real Tangible Plausible way to Unify and Solidify all Four UK Nations into the Future, Otherwise the Break Up of the Union seems Inevitable?... As a similar Veto Vote System and/or Majority vote in the European Union (EU) for each member state appears to have ensured their Unity, and because of this Veto Vote System and/or Majority Vote despite what the London Media may be saying, it appears that the EU will be around long after the UK has Disbanded? Even in the event that the EU move to a predominantly Majority Vote system in the future, this still means that each Nation gets a say (vote) on overall EU Policy, as opposed to only essentially England's Overwhelming Representation (in the UK London Parliament, currently 533 English MP's out of 650) on the UK Decision Making Process, without any 'Meaningful' Overall Legal Final Say (vote) from the other UK Celtic Nations. 

An Equality Veto Vote System but Tailored to the UK, when regarding Only genuine Crucial Selected UK Wide Concerns that will have to be Detailed between the UK Nations but set in Stone, such as going to War, or on some Foreign Policy, for Example. Then on other UK Wide decisions each UK Nation can Enact a Vote on Certain Subjects that are Important to them (a set amount a year, maybe three, otherwise it will be enacted all the time), and if agreed by Three of the Four Nations can be Veto Voted on, with the Opportunity to Veto a UK Wide Proposal until a Compromise is agreed (with a Three out of Four Majority in an ongoing Stale Mate), for Example (with English MP's Voting on England's Position to Acknowledge all of England's Regions, and at the same time the Devolved Celtic Administrations Voting on their Position). Keeping the UK Parliament Honest as they know that what ever UK Wide decisions they make can be challenged, resulting in fairer initial decision making for all the UK Nations as a whole. Surely for London better to have a Union with an Option of a Veto Vote on some UK Wide Decisions, than to have No Union at all?! 

Moreover, to those who say that a Veto Vote or Majority UK Nations Vote would be Unfair to England as it is 85% of the UK Population. The obvious answer must be that without Parity between UK Nations there will Not be a UK going into the Future, whilst Conversely Not Addressing (Actively Ignoring) the Obvious Fact that the Majority English 85% UK population (in a UK Wide Vote) is Unfair to the other smaller UK Nations. As you cannot have a permanent position where One Nation Wins, and the other Three Nations in that Union nearly always Lose, due to Disproportionate UK Number Differentials (a Great Benefit for England, but a Great Problem for the United Kingdom), as who ever is voted in Government in England then Controls the Whole of the UK, regardless of who ever may be voted in power for the other individual UK Nations. As each Nation in the UK has Differing Needs, Identities and Concerns, they are 'Not One Homogeneous Group'In a Union of Nations there must be Compromise, 'Compromise' means that 'No One Totally Wins' but also that 'No One Totally Loses'. To present a quick and simple Analogy of the Historical and Ongoing Democracy in England and Wales. This would be Similar to say Belgium subjugating (Annexing) their bordering smaller country of Luxembourg and making them part of Belgium, without their permission (No Referendum). Then holding Belgium and Luxembourg wide elections, then the result said to be the Democratic Will of Both Luxembourg and Belgium? It would only take a fraction of Belgium's 11 million population to Outnumber Luxembourg's 600 thousand people, now making Luxembourg Permanently Democratically Annexed and under Belgium's Control. See 'Nation Specific Criteria (Vote)' towards the bottom of the page under 'What is Britishness' heading, to help Develop a Fairer more Representative Voting System in each individual UK Nation, and then Coupled up with the Veto Vote System (and/or Majority Vote Between the Four UK Nations) in the UK Parliament at UK Wide Decision Making Level. Democracy is all about the Number's, as you cannot have a Different smaller Race and/or Nation amalgamated into a Larger Nation when voting Democratically as a whole, as they come with Differing National Objectives (A Conflict of National Interest's). This is the problem of Colonialism trying to assimilate different Nations, Races, Cultures and Ethnicities into yours, as you cannot erase history and people's Identities. 

Moreover, for those who say that 'Federalism' maybe the answer to the power imbalance in the UK between the Four Nations, but as England's Population is 85% of the UK Population in an Amalgamated Combined UK Vote England's Voice will be Paramount anyway as England's Voice will Still also be Paramount Overall anyway at Federal Wide UK Level as they will continue to have Vastly More MPs in the UK (English) Parliament and so Control UK Nations Sovereignty in London, as well as UK Law and Policy Decision Making. However, this is all conjecture and speculation anyway as the 'Will' to want to share power (which hasn't existed for the last 300 years, even longer for Wales, indeed Scotland before the Act of Union 1707 were still essentially controlled by London anyway, first Edward Longshanks in the 13th century, leading to Oliver Cromwell in 1650 who then became 'Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland') must be there in the first place from London, who are not willing to give up their historical 'Central Power'? Although the same 'Veto Vote and/or Majority Vote System' as in the EU does provide this Power and seems the only way of Balancing out England's Population, Size, Power Imbalance, Different Ethnicity, Characteristic's and History? 

However, still not sure 'Why' the 'Charter of the United Nations' (Chapter XI articles 73 & 74) on 'Decolonization' set up in 1945 (after the Second World War), which states 'Just Treatment and Respect for the Advancement of Societies and Economies with Protection from Abuses', along with basic 'Good Neighbourliness', and further clarified in 1960 with Resolution 1514 on the 'Declaration of Decolonization', which states that 'All People have the Right to Self Determination' (or at Least the Option), does Not also apply to Wales as 'England's Oldest Ongoing Colony'??... Welsh Style Colonialism is Commonly Referred to as 'Internal Colonialism' (Leo Marquard 1957), which has been Described as the 'Uneven Development and Exploitation of Close Proximity Territories & People'. As Opposed to External Colonialism, which involves a Satellite Governing Force and Key Settlers due to the Vast Distances from the Key Central Hub of the Colonising country (the Roman Empire for example). However, perhaps the Term 'Systemic Colonialism' may be more Accurate a Term for Wales (& some other peoples World Wide), in that another Nation (Usually in Close Proximity on the Same Landmass) is Initially Conquered by Force (Some Previous Soviet Union Countries as possible examples?) and 'Initially' Heavily Militarily Colonised (Edward the 1st's Ring of Castles for example in the case of Wales). Then Over the Intervening Years and Decades (in Wales case Even 'Centuries', so has had Plenty of Time to Fully Ingrain & Mature) 'Structural Systems' are Put in Place that ensures ultimate power is always in the hands of London (Central Hub). Systems in the case of Wales such as 'Politically' (by Rearranging Democratic Structures with the UK Parliament in London having 530 MP's out of 650 & Imposing their Own London Based Political Parties UK Wide, 'Labour/Conservatives' et al, with their Leaders based in London), 'Socially' (which Includes Total Control of the Media, Class Structures & Language), 'Economically' (Which includes New Taxes, Restricting Development & the Redirecting of Wealth into the Bank of England), also then 'Legally' (by Imposing New Laws to Officially Back their New Systems up Legally), as some examples.These Systems of Control then 'Redirects the Levers of Control' 'Further Away' from that Initially Subdued Nation Directly into the Central Power Hub of the Colonising Nation (in Wales's case London), that appears to Still Exist in Wales to this Day, with Devolution offering power for Wales on the fringes rather than overall power on key areas (where they have to ask direct permission from London), apparent Tokenism as Wales is Obviously and Evidently Not Self Governing (the' Sewel Convention' 1998, and London Sovereignty as examples)? 

Some people Confuse
'Colonialism Only with Slavery', and if a country were not part of industrialised slavery then colonialism did (or does) not exist? To Clarify, to term 'Slave' refers to an individual personally being owned by another person (Oxford Dictionary Definition of Slave, 'a person who is the legal property of another'). The term 'Colonialism' refers to another Country owning another Country. In Wales case Internal Colonialism (within a wider group). Internal Colonialism is Defined by as, 'The term internal colonialism defines a condition of oppression or subordination', being oppressed or subordinate to other's forces servitude (Servant), the Oxford Dictionary Definition of Servant is, 'a person who performs duties for others', so not for the Benefit of themselves but for the Benefit of others. Oxford Dictionary Definitions for the term Master is, 'a man in charge of an organization or group' or to 'Gain Control or Overcome'. So a Slave is Personally Owned by another Person, were as Colonialism is a Country that is Owned as an entire entity, by another Country. Obviously whilst Serving, Subordinate to your Master you will be doing jobs that you would not normally do, if you had free will. Indeed how many servants have you ever heard of saying No to their Masters, particularly in a time when the UN or Human Rights did not exist(Wales as an Autonomous Nation has Never Forcible Colonised anyone in all it's Numerous Centuries old History, Patagonia was an invitation form the Argentine Government to develop undeveloped Land). I hope this has clarified this subject matter some what?

Clearly it is not Rocket Science to set up a Token Government (with your own political parties as the main party options) in one of your Territories, but keep the main key powers to yourself, and then say that a certain place is self governing and therefore give the impression of autonomous consent, whilst being able to over ride their decisions, again the 
Sewell Convention 1998Remember that Wales has never been allowed to Self Determine with a Clarification Referendum if they Consent to even being in the UK in the first place, and it's been 500 years now since there Annexation. To Clarify, the 'Oxford English Dictionary' States 'Colonialism' as, 'the Policy or Practice of Acquiring Full or Partial Political Control over another Country, Occupying with Settlers, then Exploiting it Economically' (which is more External Colonialism, the first initial stage of Welsh Internal Colonialism, obviously first you need to conquer the land and maintain it's subjugation). The 'Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary' Defines 'Colonialism' as, 'the System or Policy of a Nation Seeking to Extend or 'Retain' it's Authority Over Other People or Territories' (which is more General Colonialism). Although, Wales still has many English Settlers and Core English Establishment Representatives. Even the Welsh Government Assembly is Still Historically Dominated by the Two Mainstream British London Based Political Parties, with One (Labour) having a slightly more Social Conscience than the Other (Conservatives), but Essentially at their 'Central Governing Core' all the 'Same Type of Person English & White' from generally the Same Type of Background (apart from a few obvious Tokens) at heir Core, in their Headquarters in London. Whilst Historically over the Previous Intervening Centuries Before the London UK Parliament, Wales was Ruled Exclusively only through English Kings & Queens in Wales at the Higher Levels of Welsh Control, using English Connected Lords and Land Owners (Estates) based in Wales, before a Parliament tin London was Established (Exploiting Coal and Slate on their Land, for example). However, even in the Most Recent UK 2011 Census (Every 10 Years) it has been Identified that 22% (Many who are Adults of Voting Age) of the general Welsh population is from England (Mainly Due to Geography), that is by Far the Largest English Contingent in any Celtic UK Nation. (See 'Nation Specific Criteria' towards the end of the page under the 'What is Britishness' heading above).

Indeed, Wales being apparent Historic and Ongoing 
'Systemic Servants' to England when they were a Colonial World Super Power in Past Centuries could just about be Understandable. However, Now Centuries on in the 'Modern World' where England are No Longer a force on the World stage any more, this apparent Perpetually Inherited Ongoing Servant & Master Left Over Colonial Legacy has Now become some what of an 'Embarrassment' for the very Capable Nations of Wales and Scotland (as it 'Infantilizes' these Nations). The Ongoing 'Inherited Systems Intrinsically Embedded' in the UK Before the UN Laws on Colonialism (1945 & 1960) seems to have Ensured an Historical and Ongoing Colonial Dominance (Internal Colonialism)? Although Wales (& Scotland) must have had Some Previous Financial Benefit of Empire whilst Serving the English Establishment (Crumbs off the Empire Table), and through Simply being on the Same Island Landmass as England (Although London was Always the End Destination & Director of Empire Wealth, usually Referred to as the 'Common Wealth Countries'). Indeed there would have Definitely been Some Unscrupulous Welsh (or Scottish) Individuals who would have Curried Favour with the Central London English Establishment to Exploit the Situation for their Own 'Personal Gain' (Every Race has some Greedy People). However, there does seem to be an attempt by the English Establishment's London Media to try to Equally Share any Blame and Accountability for the Crimes of Empire by apparently Hiding Behind the Term "British" Instead of 'English' Empire (if Only the London English Establishment were so Generous with their Empire Wealth as they are in Sharing the Blame for Taking It)?... Along with apparently Further Suggesting that 'Wales as a Nation' were an 'Equal Partner' and therefore an Equal Driving Force (as if Wales had a Say on any Decisions Made in London, the Same as Today with the Decision to Do Brexit and No Representation in Negotiations, as an easy recent example), and then 'Equal Beneficiaries' of British Empire? Which seems to be suggesting that a Systemically Subdued 'Servant' can be Equal to their 'Master' (Wales was the First Nation to be Colonised by England, and as of Yet with No Official End Date)? It seems that One Obvious Question could Clarify this Continuously Suggested 'Grey Area' once and for all, which is - 'In the Absence of England's Control would Wales as an Autonomous Nation ever have Independently Considered Forcibly Colonising Other Countries For Profit'? The Past History of Wales, with 'No Previous Behaviour of Systemic 'Forcible' Colonisation' before their Own Colonial Domination by England Initially in the 13th Century then Ratified as a Union in 1707, Suggests the Answer could be No? To Clarify, Welsh people in Patagonia had an Open Invitation (indeed Open to most Europeans at the time) in 1865 by the Argentine Government to Develop Undeveloped and Inhospitable Land, and because of this mainly Uninhabited. So 'Not' Physically Taken from Argentina by Force for Profit, Commonly known as Colonisation. An Inherited Systemic Colonial Power (Master) has the Power to Direct and Set Up Systems in their Subjugated Lands (Servants) to promote Misinformation, Implement Laws and Undertake Actions that may 'Not' Benefit the Servant Country (in Fact could Severely Restrict that Country), and only ultimately mainly Advantage the Master Country (a System Still Evident Today in the UK)? The Servant may be aware of this (or Not, Particularly if they do Not have their Own Independent Media), but Either Way Do 'Not' Ultimately Have The 'Power to say No'... A Master Servant Relationship is Defined by One thing, 'A Power Imbalance', indeed a power imbalance still evident today between England and Wales. (See 'Describing the Welsh & English Relationship?' under the 'What is Britishness' heading above)

To further Clarify one of the more obvious reasons why it is important for England to maintain control over Wales? Wales is 'Geographically' the Closest Nation to England's 'Beating Heart' of London, on the Same Landmass and therefore if 'More Autonomous' (Less Restricted by London) Could also be perceived as a Direct Possible 'Economic Threat', the biggest advantage, indeed the Holy Grail, to any country economically would be to be able to directly restrict and control your closest direct geographic Competition(Competitors on their Doorstep). For Example any English Tax Levels or Tariffs could be 'Under Cut' by Wales to Attract Business Out of England Into Neighbouring Wales (an easy recent example on the 6/9/19 being 'Airport Passenger Tax' Not be allowed to be Devolved to Wales by the UK Parliament as they said it would be unfair on Bristol airport over the border in England, even though they have a significantly larger population mass, more choice of destinations, and better transport connectivity). In addition, with Less Restrictive Control over Wales, any Large English Based International Companies Could then be posed with 'More Direct Equal UK Competition' (Based in Wales Next Door) on the Same UK Land Mass Operating in the Same Internal UK Market Place (which Accounts for 80% of the Whole UK Wealth), and then Spreading Out Internationally. In Presently 'Inaccessible' High Income Lucrative areas for Welsh Based Companies to Create Genuine Internal UK Competition, Due to the Overall Authority to Create New Companies in High Income Industries and Essential Services Held in London, with the UK Government (& associated Authorities). So appearing to Historically Restrict the Ability for Welsh Based Companies (English Nationalism) to Set Up Competing UK Companies in Lucrative Essential Services Areas such as in UK Wide 'Banking' and 'Financial Services', Wales does not even posses one Bank. 'Media Services & Film Franchises', Wales is not allowed an Independent Mainstream Media, to this day it still does not have even one Mainstream TV Channel or National Newspaper that is Welsh and Based in Wales. The list goes on including 'Mobile Phone, 5G, WiFi, & Internet Companies' (Communications), 'Utility Companies' (Water, Gas & Electricity, many Since Sold for Profit abroad), 'Fuel Companies' (Petrol, Diesel & Oil), 'International Pharmaceutical Companies' (Medicine), to Name But a Few Easy High Income and Essential UK Services Examples...  (See 'Wales in Purgatory' heading above).  

Actually, for those who say that the United Kingdom is the 
'Most Successful Union Ever', such as in the London UK Parliament January 2019. The Obvious Response must be 'Successful For Who'??... When the term 'Stronger Together' or 'Better Together' is constantly put forward from London to Describe the UK. The 'Translation' to this appears to be that 'England is Stronger Together'(as they Ultimately Control the UK Nations in all Key Areas) largely at the apparent Expense of the other UK Nations. Why do you Suppose the Whole London English Establishment Collectively, Including 'All' London Political Mainstream Parties (Left & Right), Business & Media, seem to Bitterly Resist any Hint of Independence Talk from any of their Inherited Celtic Nations? As it seems that One Dominant Majority Nation being Historically Underpinned (in an apparent Historical & Ongoing Master & Servant Relationship?) by three other Minority Nations, apparently Historically Set Up to Ultimately Serve the Interests of the One Majority Nation, was always Likely to be a Success (Not so Great for the Minority Nations though)? However, it would seem that 'Success as a Union' (Particularly Between a Union 'Fully Made Up' of Four Internationally Recognised Countries) can Only be 'Measured' by 'All Union Members', 'Equally Sharing' in that 'Elusive Fabled Success', through a Genuinely Evidenced 'Equal Share' of UK Wealth, Opportunity, Respect, Development and Overall UK Decision Making Powers, Otherwise 'What Is The Point of Being in a Union for a Minority Nation'??... An Unequal Favour Which appears Easily Evidenced by the Disproportionate Wealth (to Size of Population) in England as Compared to anywhere else in the UK. To Clarify, England Should Have '18' times More Money than Wales ('all things being Equal'), as they have '18' times more People in their Population (55 Million English Population Divided by 3 Million Welsh population). Not '46.5' times More Money than Wales as is the Current Situation, with £700 Billion Annually for England and £15 Billion for Wales ('700 Divided by 15 Equals 46.5'), Not including areas Promoted as UK Wide Resources Usually based in England (figures sited from GOV.UK government website 2016). See 'The Inequality Indicator' at the bottom page of 'Wales in Purgatory?' above for more DetailAs in the Absence of any 'Equally Shared Benefits' Wales appears to have 'Most of the Negatives' of Being a 'Minority' Nation within a Larger Union (Restrictions, Loss of Power, Under Development & Slandered), with almost 'None of the Positives' (Equal Share of Wealth, Power & Opportunity) of Being attached to a Larger 'Majority' Nation?! As stated by Woodrow Wilson (the 28th US President), 'YOU CANNOT BE FRIENDS UPON ANY OTHER TERMS THAN UPON THE TERMS OF EQUALITY'

'Be In No Doubt', the Scottish Independence Question 'Will Never Go Away' (if this Antiquated London English Establishment Dominant Colonialist Attitude Continues) and will Ultimately Succeed Sooner rather than Later (with a possible knock on affect to the other Celtic Nations)? Even though Theresa May (UK Prime Minister in March 2017) has already said she will 'Not Allow' a Second Scottish Referendum (To Clarify, the Scottish National Party 'SNP' Miraculously Finally Gaining a Majority in Scotland Forced the First One in 2014, it was Not just Given!), even with apparent Debilitating UK Systems Embedded. Systems such as the 'London Orchestrated British Media', which is Able to Keep people Uninformed and Promote Possible Misinformation, for Example, 'You Have to be in the UK to stay in Europe'? Indeed, as Second Scottish Independence Referendum is only being called as the UK Parliament took Scotland out of the EU against their Democratic will, whilst stating in the First Referendum (2014) that this is something they would not do. Also as the Whole of the UK Wide Internet is Monitored through the London UK Government (the UK's GCHQ in Cheltenham), 'Algorithmes' can be used on Mass through all 'UK Residents Internet & Social Media Use' to find Patterns of Behaviour (to Accentuate their Identified 'Fears' and Minimise their Identified 'Hopes') to create Suggestions of How to Influence certain groups of people on Mass. The London based 'Cambridge Analytica' exposed in 2018 (Regarding Influencing Voting) as a possible example, with their 'Anonymous' Backers, Allowed to Simply 'Disband' with 'No Legal Consequences' for any Individuals. A Very Telling Version of the Term 'Privilege' is the Oxford English Dictionary's Definition, which is stated as 'Privilege From Liability Or Obligation'?... (See 'Wales in Purgatory?' heading above Paragraphs 18,19 & 20 for Some Further Possible Examples and Explanations?!) Through using Vital Widespread Trend Information that simply would Not be Available to any Other Areas of the UK. So Creating a possible Unfair Advantage in Strategy Compilation in any UK Referendums or Elections? Indeed, 'UK Personal Data' is Regulated by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), a UK Government Agency Based in Cheshire (England), so apparently a UK Government Allocated Agency allowed to Regulate Themselves (the UK Government), regarding UK People's Personal Data? Furthermore, English people Resident (Including even English Students, who tend to Study then Leave) in Scotland at the time Allowed a Vote on Scottish Independence in 2014 with an Obvious 'Conflict of Interests', a Basic Human Instinct, Click for Link, as 'England Still Ultimately Own & Control Scotland', which could be almost like asking'Turkeys to Vote for Christmas', as it would clearly Disadvantage England, 'Less Land & Control = Less Profit & Prestige', along with the perceived 'Weakening of their Union'. ​As Unfortunately It appears Inevitable that eventually Scotland will be Independent, particularly After Brexit taking them Out of Europe Against their Democratically Elected Will (Scotland Voted to Remain 62% to 38%), the Material Change of Circumstance that has allowed the call for a Second Referendum.

Actually, it does appear that a Fair and Balanced Independence (
to Reduce Poverty and Slander in Wales) or Not Review Referendum (a Clarification Referendum) may be Ultimately Required for the genuine Welsh people to Finally 'Democratically' Clarify and Decide for Themselves if this Historically Imposed membership of the UK is something they actually 'Consent' too as 'Equal Partners' in the 21st Century. As Wales has Never been 'Allowed' a Mass Democratic Vote to be 'In or Out' of the UK in all it's Centuries Old HistoryAs without Democratic Consent the Relationship between Wales and England remains an 'INVOLUNTARY' one as to this day the London English Establishment to have have any Democratic Consent from the people of Wales. To Clarify, the Welsh Referendum in 1997 was Specifically for an 'Assembly or Not', so Not and Independence Referendum, and the Referendum of 2011 was 'to possibly Extend the Limited Powers for that Assembly or Not'. In the Continued Absence of a 'Clarification Referendum' for the Welsh people, Wales as a Minority UK Nation will Always Remain in the Colonial Past (which 'Infantilizes' a Nation) where they were Forced to join the UK Without their agreement (1707 Act of Union Engineered by the English Establishment in London in a Time when Mass Democracy did Not Exist in Britain). Continuing the 'Same Old Tired' Ongoing Inherited English/Welsh, Master/Servant Relationship Based on Past Historic Imposed Colonial Force, and Not as 'New Modern Consenting Democratic Partners', which in a 'so called' Modern Democracy kind of makes sense? (See 'Describing the Welsh & English Relationship?' under the 'What is Britishness' heading above)

Although, Wales Constantly being Told by the London British Media that it is 
'Too Poor' to be Independent (which incidentally was the Same Argument used by the then UK Government when the Successful Nation of the Republic of Ireland went Independent), if Independence is the Up to Date Modern 'Democratic' Choice of the genuine Welsh people. This poverty argument has been Compared to a Controlling Partner in an Involuntary Marriage (Coercive Control), when using their Dominance and Influence to 'Restrict their Partners Finances and Financial Opportunities', and then repeatedly using their partners 'Induced Low Income Against Them', by saying that 'You Can't Possibly Go' because you are 'Too Poor to Leave', as you will Not be able to 'Survive on your Own without my Money'. (Apparently Creating an Ongoing 'Financial Dependency', which Further Creates a Palpable 'Fear of the Unknown'?). Even though the same London English Establishment saying this, are taking the UK out of the EU creating the same Fear of the Unknown, but that is OK because it is them doing it? Actually, in order for Wales (or Scotland) to Leave the UK they must first have permission from the London English Establishment. This again is like saying to my wife that you cannot divorce me (if that is her choice) without my permission to do so, 'Coercive Control' anyone?!

Indeed, further putting forward the Reason for Staying in an Easily Evidenced Unequal Damaging Union, that in the Short Term 'it may be a little bit difficult to leave', can never be a Mature Grown Up argument. Yet in the Historical and Continuous Absence of a Modern Up to Date Balanced Open Public Media Debate to Provide 'Both Sides of the Independence Story' (although the British Media is Orchestrated from London) the Welsh seem to Remain Permanently 'Paralysed' by this One Sided 'To Poor' suggestion? Which appears to be an attempt to Historically Permanently 'Shut Down' any Impartial Objective Current or Future Welsh Independence Conversation or Debate, as part of a Serious Long Overdue Urgent Assessment of the already Extremely Limited Improvement possibilities available to the Welsh people. Wales is Historically & Continuously the Poorest Nation in the UK, with some of the same old Poorest areas in Europe due to Historical Underdevelopment and Under funding (Recognised by the Need for EU Funding), with the most over reliance on state funded public sector jobs due to the least Business & Tourism income in the UK (VisitBritain Snapshot 2018), with one of the most Vulgar & Degrading Slander Terms (Bestiality) in the World Directly Attached to their Name. As all Options Must Remain on the Table for Wales and None ruled out Because of proposed 'Fear', since Wales already has Very Few tangible Alternatives for Development and Growth when Regarding their Future Progress or Continued Historical Ongoing Stagnation, Restriction, and Underdevelopment. (See 'How can Wales be Improved?' under the 'Wales in Purgatory?' heading above)

​This Historic & Ongoing Welsh Problem of 'Poverty & Slander' has been further  Evidenced and Highlighted recently by 'yet another' apparent English Establishment Figure (the Journalist 'Rod Liddle' who is White & English, Educated at the London School of Economics) with his Officially 'Unchallenged' Article Printed in the 'Sunday Times Dated April 2018' Discussing the Forced Renaming of the Second Severn Bridge Crossing (built in 1996) connecting England & Wales in the South with 'No Welsh Public Consultation' to the 'Prince of Wales Bridge' in 2018. There was also 'No Democratic Vote' for Him Becoming Prince of Wales in the First Place, in a Democratic Society surely this is Insane and keeps Wales firmly living in Past, do Welsh people want to become Modern Citizens or do they want to remain as Historical Subjects, but they must be allowed the Democratic Choice. Whilst taking into consideration the natural Conflict of Interet's English people will have for their own English Royal Family who largely Define who they are. An apparent further Modern attempt to Impose Historic and Out Dated Colonialism (Indeed the English Royal Family appear to be at the Apex of the British Class Hierarchy)? It's Not that the 'Prince of Wales' Title should not exist (Look at the Power to influence that the 'Diana Princess of Wales' Title Possessed), it's just that if you are Fortunate enough to have this Undemocratic (the UK is meant to be a Democratic Society?) 'Personally Unearned Inherited Privilege' then at Least do Something with it, or 'Democratically' Hand the Title to Someone that will Appreciate it and Not see it as an apparent Imposed Shame or Burden (with the Investitures Still Taking Place in Caernarfon for any possible Tourism Benefits). To Clarify, The Prince of Wales Title was taken from Lewelyn Ap Gruffudd in 1282 (seen by the English Monarchy as the Embodiment of King Arthur through Geoffrey of Monmouth's writings) with the Title automatically Handed Down to the Eldest Son of the English Sovereign to this Day (2019). (See p132 of the Free Book Provided above, under 'Should A Prince Of Wales Be Democratically Elected' by the Welsh people? However, Rod Liddle, in his article, was publicly 'Mocking' Welsh People (at arms length of course through the London Media) for being 'Poor' (compared to England) by stating that, 'The Severn Bridge Is A Way for Welsh People To Cross Into A First World Country', an apparent 'Third World Country' that England have Created, with Friends like this, who needs Enemies. Far from Mocking Poverty in Wales, it might be wise to Respect the Harsh Fact that 'Poverty & Hardship are Abstract Words, But the 'Pain' Felt by Poverty & Hardship is Very Real & Raw'!!... As previously 'Identified' and 'Explained' by Mahatma Ghandi regarding the British Raj (London English Establishment) Rule in India (1856-1947), 'Poverty is the Worst Form of Violence!'...                                                                                                                                                                                              

However, when Simply Looking at the Evidence in an Objective Reasoned Logical Manner (although I am Welsh?) it does appear to Confirm that Every Small Nation that has Gained Independence, particularly within the Wealthy Geographic Region of Europe has Thrived (Compared to What it Was) and would Never Consider Going Back (Indeed No One who has ever Gained Independence has sought to Reverse it, even more Recently the Former Soviet Union Countries in Europe!)? Even the Small (with Roughly the Same Size & Population as Wales) Nations that have Always Been Independent in the Same North Western Region of Europe as Wales (such as all the Scandinavian Countries) are Wealthier than Wales, even Iceland per head of Population. Which given that Wales is part of the UK that is currently the Fifth (5th) Wealthiest place on Earth, is Clear Evidence that Something Must be Wrong with UK Wealth Distribution and Generation (See, 'Wales in Purgatory' Heading above)However, Wales (& Scotland) are in a 'Unique and Quite Fortunate' position regarding any possible Independence, 'if they wish'? Thanks to the Successful Independent Country of the Republic of Ireland Leaving the UK in 1922 'After 200 Years in a Union', who have Already Set a 'Short to Long Term Identifiable Blueprint' of 'How' to Successfully Leave the UK in the Smoothest most Orderly Fashion, 'If Desired' (again, all possible Options must Remain on the Table for Wales)? So seeming to  Make any possible Independence from the UK Easier than the UK leaving the EU 'After just 40 Years in a Union' (as No One has ever Left the EU before)? Particularly Pertinent to Wales as the Republic of Ireland (who have Already Achieved & Sustained Independence from the UK & have Learnt from any Initial Mistakes) are Almost the 'Mirror Image' of Wales (& Scotland) in Previously being Colonised by England, Size, Population, History, Primary Language​, Culture, Ethnicity and general Geographic Location, there is No Other Country in the World More Similar to Wales (& Scotland)? Although it is very Interesting to Note that when the London English Establishment Take the Whole of the UK Out of Europe, due to the Power they Possess to Amalgamate the UK Vote which Obviously Favours their 85% Majority Population (Independence from the EU), with No Previous Plan, Precursory Road Map or General Direction into the Unknown (as it has Never been done Before by Anyone), it is Sold Loudly by 'Many' Politicians on the London Media as a Time for Growth, Opportunity and to Take Back Control? Conversely, when a UK Celtic Nation may want to go into the So Called Unknown by even Suggesting Independence from the UK (which has Already been Achieved Successfully by an almost Identical Nation, who are Still Close Celtic Friends and Allies to this Day) it is Projected by 'All' the London English Establishment UK Politicians, Media & Business Collectively (through the London Media) as a Disaster and Doomed to Failure (Again, Double Standards)!? Even with a Multitude of Smaller Nations Similar to the Size of Wales Thriving in the Same Affluent Geographic North Western position in Europe as Wales?...

UK Inequality has been Further Evidenced recently in 2016 when 
'OXFAM' Identified the UK as, 'Yet Again', 'One of the Most Unequal Economies in the Western Developed World'. Indeed, to try to Explain to reader the Urgency of the Ongoing Welsh situation (Consistently the Most Unequal of the Unequal in the UK, "the Poorest") away from the London Media Bubble. In November 2018 it was Necessary for Philip Alston the United Nations (UN) Independent Observer on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights to come to Britain and assess Britain's Poverty. As part of his UK Wide assessment he visited the Welsh Government to calculate what powers Wales are allowed (& the restrictions) so they can try to minimise the Impact of Continuous Under funding from Westminster (London). He then presented a Scathing Impartial International Report on the Rich Poor Divide in the UK, as well as Identifying Poverty and Human Rights Legislation Abuse in Britain (However, the UK Government are said to be seeking to Replace the Human Rights Act 1998 with a 'British Bill of Rights' (or other name). It appears that the Best Way to Avoid Breaking Potentially Restrictive International Law is to Make Your Own Up!), stating that Ministers in London where in a state of constant 'Denial' (to put this Independent International Report into Context he had recently assessed Uganda & Mauritania).                                          

In addition, It appears Pertinent to Note at this Point that the Newest Piece of Equality Legislation in the UK (the Equality Act 2010) that Combines previous UK Discrimination Legislation does Not Include 
'Discrimination' Based on the Specific Grounds of UK 'Nationality' (although since 2014 the Celtic Nations have since been Identified as a Separate 'Race' to Anglo-Saxon England) or 'Class' (a Person's Social or Economic Status, so general with Powerful Friends and Connections). The Nine Worthy areas Protected are Race, Age, Disability, Gender Reassignment, Religion, Sex, Sexual Orientation, Civil Marriage and Maternity Pregnancy, but Not 'Nationality or Class'. Pertinent as these Omissions of 'Protection from Discrimination' Based on 'Nationality or Class' (the English Establishment Authorities in London Make UK Law) seem to Demonstrate an 'Intent' to Continue to Allow Historical UK 'Discrimination and Bias' Based on a Person's 'Nationality or Class Status' (English and Connected, basically the Main London English Establishment's Selection Criteria)? Particularly Important in a Country Fully Made Up of 'Four Individually Recognised Nations', with One Nationality of English Favoured above the other's, within a Favoured Social Class Structure'?... Although 'Nationality' is Covered in the Human Rights Act 1998. ​

The main 'Equality Catch 22 Dilemma' in the UK, and the apparent Reason why Inequality is Still Historically Ongoing with No Logical End in Sight, is that the very people who have the Inherited Power to ensure Equality in the UK are the very people that Equality will Hurt the Most. To Clarify, if you give up your Privilege for a more Equal Society then you no longer hold the Advantage, which means you will be Competing against people on Equal Terms and will have to Rely on Superior Talent and Ability, a Significant Problem and Risk for those Without these Skills. So the whole of UK Society appears to have to Hope that the 'Personally Unearned Inherited Privileged English Establishment' would Suddenly (after Centuries of Handed Down Inherited Privilege) have a 'Change of Heart' and 'Autonomously' and 'Altruistically' give up their Centuries Old Inherited Advantage on Mass to provide greater UK Equality for all, a Highly Unlikely scenario (& so it continues)... It  sounds Strange, but 'when a Person is so Used to Inherited Privilege, Equality can Feel like Oppression' (source unknown)? The Primary Difference Between a Person 'With' a 'Personally Unearned Privileged Connected Background within the Majority tribe' and the Person 'Without', is Easy Access to 'Greater Opportunity'. Along with the ongoing Security of their Families personal Finances in their Personal life, Careers & Business (with 'No Risk' Easily Accessible 'Disposable Funds' to Randomly Speculate or Invest, so No Fear of Losing Everything as there is Plenty More where that came from). Along with the Entitlement to Remain in their Provided Positions (or eventually move, at their convenience, to another privileged position) if Found to be Incompetent (a Regular Occurrence in UK Government and Associated Organisations, Boris Johnson, Micheal Gove, Chris Grayling, Amber Rudd & Jeremy Hunt to name but a few easy recent examples). The Basic 'Irony' appears to be that these Personally Unearned Privileged Individuals (also their Family Members & Associates) seem to have Convinced Themselves that they have Achieved 'Purely' on their Own Individual Merit, Talent, Superior Intellect and Natural Ability. This Misconception Usually Referred to by the Privileged (themselves) as a 'Meritocracy', which is Described by the 'Oxford English Dictionary' as 'Government or the Holding of Power by People Selected on Merit'. Although it would appear Obviously Detrimental to a Person's Ego to Accept that as an Individual they may have Only Achieved through Unearned Inherited Privileged Family Advantage, Finances & Connections, and Not through Genuine Ability in a Fair Contest, which it appears that most Adults (even most Children) could do Given the Same Advantages?!...  Indeed, in a recent Guardian UK National Newspaper Article (24.2.2016) through the Sutton Trust Regarding 'Privately Educated Elites' in the UK found that only 7% of People where Privately Educated in England but held up to 75% of most Top UK Senior Professional Jobs in Medicine (Doctors), Law (Judges), Politics, Media (Producers, Directors, Presenters, Actors & Singers) & Journalism. Furthermore, a 2014 Sutton Trust Study (through the Boston Consulting Group) Found that 65% of Investment Bankers Went to Private School (Grammar Schools) or a Top Russel Group University, 45% Oxford (The Predominant Ethnicity being English & White). However, the option of an average person sending their children to private school is not an option, due to the Obvious Cost, otherwise we would all be doing it. To Clarify, the Option of buying a Rolls Royce car is Technically an Option as they are available to anyone, but not available to the people who do not have the money to buy one. So the Option does not exist unless you have the financial means to afford it, money equals choice, no money equals no choice, otherwise we would all be driving around in a Rolls Royce, Bentley or Mecedes Benz car.So the further Dilemma, yet another 'Catch 22' for the average person (on top of Needing to be the Required Class, Colour & Nationality within a connected Social Club) that seems to keep the Status Quo, is also through Financial Barriers. Meaning that if you are not in the connected privileged few you predominantly cannot make the money to send your children to a top private school, but in order to make the money to send your kids to a top private school, you predominantly need the opportunities and career progress prospects of a private education?...                       

However, Capitalism can be a Great Concept, but Unfortunately Predominantly for the 'Personally Unearned Inherited Privileged' in the UK ('Personally Unearned' means the Initial & Ongoing Advantage and Special Right Given Through their Ancestral Family & Educational Connections, so Advantages 'Given' to them Not Personally 'Earned' by them) within Britain (again Regardless of Actual Proven Ability)? As very Few people (although some Odd Exceptions do Emerge from time to time) will have the Opportunity to Properly Exploit these Capitalist Principles in the UK without the Special Right and Advantage of Connections to Power (Opportunity), and 'Easy Access' to 'Disposable' (No Risk) Investment Money (Capital) to Exploit any UK Business/Career Opportunities apparently Provided through Connections and Inside Knowledge (see 'Wales in Purgatory?' heading above Paragraph 18,19,20 for some further possible Examples & Explanation)? Indeed the Oxford English Dictionary Definition of 'Privilege' is stated as, 'A Special Right, Advantage, or Immunity for a Particular Person' (Immunity meaning Not Having to Follow the Same Rules or Laws that Everyone has too (Tend to Avoid Criminal Prosecution), so 'Not Playing on an Even Playing Field' with the Rest of Society)? It's Not that Capitalism is a Bad Thing, it is that the people who Traditionally Gain the Money, Special Right and Advantage within the UK are Mainly within an Historically "Elite" Inherited Interlinked Power Club, the Central London English Establishment (who are English & White, with a Few Token 'Peripheral' Public Ethnicities) with UK Finance, Systemic UK Power Over Decision Making and UK Business/Financial /Media & Career Opportunity generally staying Historically within that Elite Club (Across All Primary Sectors, such as UK Business, Media, Law, Economics & Politics). Which then appears to Restrict General Opportunity for Profit, Social Mobility & Influential UK Power Positions from being Evenly Spread Around the UK through all other Classes, Ethnicities, Nationalities and Backgrounds to this Day (2019). However, it does appear that the Privileged are all for Capitalism when they Profit but become Socialists very quickly when they need public help (Banking Crisis for example?).

Further compounded by the fact that the UK Wealthy seem to put the Tax Burden used for running the country onto the masses (who can least afford it) whilst avoiding their own Tax responsibilities (usually using off shore British Territory accounts, Cayman Islands for example). Indeed, as asserted by the most recent 'State of the Nation Report' to this text being written (2019), 'Basically, if You Come From Privilege You are More likely to Remain Privileged' (& so it Continues)... Moreover, It is Not that People are "Jealous" of these Privileged Establishment People as all Societies Need Leadership, but it is to say that it is a 'Basic Human Instinct' to just want 'Fairness', to 'Play on an Even Playing Field' so that these Leaders are Allocated on Genuine Demonstrated Talent and Ability, not apparently just Predestined at Birth or in certain Elite Schools Regardless of Ability.This 'Natural Instinct' to want perceived 'Fairness' is also Evidenced by Large Sections of the Privileged English Establishment themselves when stating the Same overall Reason Why they wanted to Leave the European Union (Brexit 2016). Indeed, having people in Positions of UK Power who have Earned the Right to be there through Demonstrated Competence, Ability and Talent (Regardless of Ethnicity or Background) can only be a Good thing for Britain as a Whole Moving on into the Future, perhaps then making Britain the 'New Land of Opportunity' Regardless of Background, Race or Nationality?... However, Not so Good for the wider London English Establishment Club Members, for Two Main Reasons: The First Reason being that they will Have to Prove Ability and Talent Before and During Given Powerful Political, Media & Business UK Roles (a Problem for those Without these Abilities). But Crucially with People in Direct Positions (in the Inner Circle) of UK Power 'Outside' of the London English Establishment's Preferred Ethnicity and Background, means that the Central London English Establishment will Not have Free Reign to be able to Favour their Own Nation's Interests (the 'National Interests' which appears to be suggesting England's, the Inclusive UK Wide Version would be the 'Nation's Interests', there are Four Nations within the UK?) as there will then be Resistance from Inside the Core Central London UK Corridors of Power, 'as they Won't All be the Same Type of Person with the Same Type of Intrinsic Interest's at their Core'. Effectively Meaning that the Historical Central London English Establishment Club may No Longer be Able to Function? Which Might Explain Why Historically the Central Core of the English Establishment Stay Predominantly Within Their Own Ethnicity and Background (apart From a Few Obvious Peripheral Tokens). Clearly these London English Establishment Elites cannot Continue their Power over the UK if not for the Fact that they Ultimately still Control the Whole of the UK through Inherited Colonialism established centuries ago, and which they have no intention of giving up (with the Power to Prevent a second Scottish Referendum, due to Brexit, and to Deny Wales any sort of Independence Clarification Referendum, or even any Media Coverage to Open a Debate, to Finally provide Democratic Consent, as Obvious Ongoing examples).

The Author would like to take this Opportunity to Thank the Ten's of Thousands of People around the World that have Engaged with this Website, which is quite amazing as this site has no budget for advertising, or opportunity for exposure on the UK mainstream or regional Media. once again 'Thank you' for your Involvement.

I​​​​​​​​​f you would like to Contact me to provide Feedback, issue a Donation towards general Running Costs, Highlight any possible Inconsistencies or for General Enquiries, please use the following E-Mail address -



The 'Collins Dictionary' States that, 'Colonialism is the Practice by which a Powerful Country Directly Controls Less Powerful Countries and Uses their Resources to Increase its Own Power and Wealth'.

The 'Oxford Reference' States that, "Internal Colonialism Refers to a Structured Relationship of Oppression and Exploitation Between a Dominant Ethnic Group and one or more". Anglo-Saxon & Celtic.

Welsh Sheepshaggers:

                 An English Establishment Lie..?