I don't disagreewith the idea that putting sustainability at the heart of our government's workis a good thing.  Nor am I arguing for amoment that the government should change this policy.  On the contrary, it's something on which I'mdelighted to see Walestaking a lead.  But it's the legalobligation part which concerns me.

Had the governmentand Assembly freely chosen to make sustainability central to its work, I'd havebeen entirely supportive.  Indeed, I'deven have been prepared to lobby and campaign for such a decision to be taken.

But the legalobligation is contained in the legislation setting up the Assembly, and assuch, it underlines the subordinate nature of our legislature.  Its central guiding principle has not beendefined by the Assembly itself, nor by the elected government of Wales, but by the UK Parliament which has placedan obligation on Waleswhich it has not been prepared to place on itself or on the UK Government.

I'm happy to take adegree of pride in the principle itself; but not in its provenance.  I'm uncomfortable with the idea that anygovernment should have its central guiding principle handed down to it byanother government, and with no ability to change it.  I'd be much prouder if the Assembly hadadopted the principle for itself - or even been handed the power to change itand then decided not to.

I'm not a fan ofFred Goodwin either.  He was one of thegreedy bankers whose poor decision-making caused the collapse of someinstitutions, made the financial crisis worse, and caused misery for millions.

Add the twotogether, and I'm hardly likely to shed a tear for him over the removal ofhis knighthood.  There are, though, someaspects of what happened which leave me with an uneasy feeling.

The first is thepretence that the decision was made by the monarch on the recommendation ofsome independent committee of senior civil servants who assessed his case andfound it to be so severe that he, and he alone, should be unknighted (or perhapsdeknighted?).  If there was ever apolitical decision, this was it. Politics was of the essence here, with the need to respond to theoutrage whipped up by the tabloid media. The idea that this decision was made in an entirely unbiased way by civilservants is simply not credible.

The second is thearbitrariness of the decision.  Thereseems to be no sense of careful weighing of the pros and cons, consideringprecedent, or looking at other, equally - if not more - undeserving cases.  Even rich and greedy individuals are surelyentitled to some sort of due process which doesn't single them out on anarbitrary basis in response to the baying of the mob.

The third is thefeeling that he's been scapegoated; sacrificed on the altar of public opinionto atone for the sins not only of himself but of others too.  It's as if the Establishment somehow believethat by throwing one of their own to the wolves, the wolves will be sated andwill not come after the rest of them.

And the worstaspect of all is that I have a horrible suspicion that  the Establishment will be right to think that, they'll get away withthe sacrifice, and the cosy little system will then carry on as if nothing hadhappened.

Althoughsome would have us regard the denizens of Cardiff Bay & Cathays Park asfaultless compared to their Westminster counterparts when it comes to expenses (nottoo challenging a notion) today's WesternMail tends to raise a few doubts.

Plaid AMLindsay Whittle has managed to uncover claims by Welsh Government officialswhich involve a few arcane purchases to say the least.

Amongthe list of 'essentials' are five pairs of walking boots bought over the internet from Cotswold Outdoorlast May at a cost of £630, with another pair costing £125 two months later. AnOrdnance Survey map was also bought from Menai Ski Outdoor for £6.99 accordingto the paper.

MrWhittle is quoted as saying that "members of the public will be intrigued andsurprised by some of the claims".

Let'shope that members of the finance committee are similarly bemused and start asking questions.

I'm not a fan ofFred Goodwin either.  He was one of thegreedy bankers whose poor decision-making caused the collapse of someinstitutions, made the financial crisis worse, and caused misery for millions.

Add the twotogether, and I'm hardly likely to shed a tear for him over the removal ofhis knighthood.  There are, though, someaspects of what happened which leave me with an uneasy feeling.

The first is thepretence that the decision was made by the monarch on the recommendation ofsome independent committee of senior civil servants who assessed his case andfound it to be so severe that he, and he alone, should be unknighted (or perhapsdeknighted?).  If there was ever apolitical decision, this was it. Politics was of the essence here, with the need to respond to theoutrage whipped up by the tabloid media. The idea that this decision was made in an entirely unbiased way by civilservants is simply not credible.

The second is thearbitrariness of the decision.  Thereseems to be no sense of careful weighing of the pros and cons, consideringprecedent, or looking at other, equally - if not more - undeserving cases.  Even rich and greedy individuals are surelyentitled to some sort of due process which doesn't single them out on anarbitrary basis in response to the baying of the mob.

The third is thefeeling that he's been scapegoated; sacrificed on the altar of public opinionto atone for the sins not only of himself but of others too.  It's as if the Establishment somehow believethat by throwing one of their own to the wolves, the wolves will be sated andwill not come after the rest of them.

And the worstaspect of all is that I have a horrible suspicion that  the Establishment will be right to think that, they'll get away withthe sacrifice, and the cosy little system will then carry on as if nothing hadhappened.

What exactly isdecentralised socialism?  It's not thatthere aren't definitions around, of course there are.  It's more that, in some ways, the two concepts(decentralism and socialism) don't always mesh together very well.  And the reason that I've found it difficultis that I consider myself to be both a socialist and a decentralist, and whilstit's comparatively easy to support both positions in theory, it can bedifficult when it comes to specifics.

As a result, to anextent, those of us who advocate decentralist socialism have got away with itfor years without really having to put the flesh on the bones.  Plaid's review has recommended doing somework on that - I look forward to seeing it, but suspect that it will be easierto recommend than to achieve.

I remember PhilWilliams once saying that decentralised socialism is an oxymoron - socialism requiresby its nature a strong central authority to ensure redistribution andfairness.  It doesn't stop at Europeanlevel either; how are we to achieve global fairness in access to the earth'sresources without strong global institutions?

That need for astrong central redistributive policy is really the reason for supporting thecontinuation of EU structural funding.  Itdoesn't make the EU a socialist organisation; far from it.  But it's hard to see how a fully decentralistmodel works to enable fairness without such supranational structures.  And that creates a dichotomy.

The question thrownat myself and others over the years - how can you argue for both devolution andthe EU; you're just swapping one remote central government for an even moreremote one - is far from being an unfair one. The answer depends less on what the institutions are than on what powerswe cede to each of them.

The problem is thatto get where I want to go, I wouldn't really start from where we are, but ifchange isn't going to be sudden and revolutionary, then it is going to be slowand evolutionary, based on where we are now.

In practice,support for devolution to and within a Wales which enjoys full membershipof the EU is something of a compromise, and I recognise that.  But it's a compromise which representsprogress from where we are now.

Superficially, JackStraw has a point.  If the UK did not contribute to the EU's structuralfunds, the UK would havemore money to spend on regional assistance within the UK.  I can't argue with that; but it isn't thatsimple.

The firstcomplication is that the fact that the UK Government 'could' do something doesn'tmean that it 'would' do something.  'Regional'assistance policy has been inconsistent at best within the UK over the decades,and I think we can be forgiven for suspecting that the UK Government mightsimply trouser the cash and use it to fund tax cuts, or wars, or whatever.  There's absolutely no guarantee that we'd seeany of it, which is the basis of much of the argument against what Straw said.

That raises anotherissue, though.  Is the fact that we mighttrust one government - the EU - more than another - the UK - really thebest way to decide where regional policy should be made?  I don't think it can be or should be.  It isn't radically different from theargument put forward by some anti-devolutionists - they trust the UK government morethan the Welsh one and therefore want power to remain there.  If we're consistent, we should surelyseparate the issue of where policy is made from the substance of that policy.  We need a better reason than distrust of London to want the decisions to be made in Brussels.

Nor is it goodenough to decide whether participation in the EU structural funds is worthwhileon the basis of a simple comparison of how much we put in and how much we getback.  On that basis, only the poorestcountries would want to contribute - but there'd be nothing left for them to withdraw.  And that's ultimately the whole point of theEU structural funds - the most well-off put in more and the least well-off getmore back.

It's fundamentallya question of whether we support redistribution or not - looking at it in termsof what we get is a much narrower viewpoint. We tend to forget sometimes that the UKis one of the wealthiest countries in the UK;it is inevitable that the UKwill therefore be a big net contributor. 

The problem for Wales is thatwe're a poor region within a wealthy state. We only get Convergence Funding (like Objective One funding before it)because of some creative work drawing a line across Wales in order to invent aregion which didn't exist before, and which exists for no other purpose than toqualify for the funding.

That shows thecomplexity of the issue of redistributive policies - drawing the right lines inthe right places (and not necessarily following accepted regional or nationalboundaries) can make a huge difference to the perception of wealth and povertywithout making any difference whatsoever to the actual wealth or poverty of thepeople affected.

There was one otherpoint raised by the Open Europe report which has received little attention.  That is the extent to which the whole processis managed efficiently and effectively, and whether the same amount of fundingcould deliver more effect on the periphery with less bureaucracy at the centre.  I think that they have a point there; I justdon't agree that dismantling the whole policy is the best way of resolving it.

"There will be a tendency for local authorities to adoptthis practice in many more instances because of the pressure they're under toimprove educational attainment in Wales", says LiberalDemocrat education spokesman Aled Roberts.

He's a bit late with his warnings though.

Chris Holley, leader of Lib Dem-controlled Swansea Council, announcedto the media back in December 2010 that he had triedto sack the governing body of Daniel James School - which the LEA hassince closed down - some 18 months earlier.

Hetold the local paper, "Eighteen months ago I asked the director ofeducation to sack the governing body".

"Theschool wasn't improving. It wasn't giving the quality of education you wouldexpect and that the authority demands through the Welsh Assembly and Estyn, andthat is that all our children have the same standard of education", he said.

PerhapsAled only read the Welsh language version of the original article.