A time for candour about the renaming
THE UK Government’s silence about the decision to rename the second Severn crossing the Prince of Wales Bridge is disappointing.
The scale of opposition to the renaming since the announcement on Thursday is significant. More than 32,400 names had been placed on a petition in protest by early evening yesterday.
This is a number of people bigger than the propulation of many towns throughout Wales. These citizens have exercised their right to hold a democratically-elected government to account for a decision.
Such individuals should not be dismissed as republicans or written-off as Welsh nationalists, although people with such convictions have every right to make their arguments with passion and clarity in a democracy.
The grievance which has been repeatedly expressed since the debacle was born with Thursday’s surprise announcement is that there was no public consultation.
In a mature democracy citizens should have regular opportunities to influence decision-making. It should not be the case that the only chance people have to make their voice heard comes at election time.
If the Wales Office had launched a consultation on how to honour the Prince of Wales on the 60th anniversary of the creation of his title it would have received imaginative suggestions. There are many throughout Wales who regard the Royal family with respect and affection.
But the announcement of the decision to rename the second Severn crossing looks, unfairly or not, like an ill-conceived and illadvised attempt to dodge a debate.
There are few modern landmarks with the iconic power of this mighty bridge.
Residents of California would be riled if they woke up to hear that the Golden Gate Bridge was being renamed a particular politician or figure in American life. It’s not so much that the people being honoured might be controversial but the sense that such a symbol of a community is being tampered with without its people’s consent.
Many people in Welsh politics have feared that Brexit would lead to the imposition of decisions made in Whitehall without full debate. The debacle over the bridge does nothing to assure worried individuals that Welsh sensitivities will be respected; the condemnation of the way in which the new name for the bridge was announced by the Rev Aled Edwards, one of Wales’ most experienced experts in the field of human rights, should be studied.
The Prince of Wales will not want to be at the centre of a row in his 70th birthday year. The Queen has successfully transcended party politics rather than being dragged into disputes.
This is a time for transparency and for real concerns about the renaming decision to be answered. It would be important to know how this idea was conceived and where the pressure for the name change came from. This is about respect and living in a democracy. And, in the name of Wales, remaining silent is just not the answer.