English: I commend you, First Minister, on this document and your interesting propositions, and also your desire to engage in a UK-wide debate rather than narrow this to the specifics of Welsh devolution. You say Plaid Cymru will never see the risks as outweighing the rewards of independence - at least they do, potentially, to 2030, which I think is the date they vaunt for their referendum. But you've given a very full-throated defence of the United Kingdom today. I have felt some of your Ministers and certainly backbenchers have shilly-shallied on that issue, but you didn't today, and for that I would thank you. The body of your document starts by saying, whatever its historical origins, the United Kingdom is best now seen as a voluntary association of nations taking the form of a multinational state whose members share and redistribute resources and risks amongst themselves to advance their common interests. It's quite an instrumental description of the union, but also does it recognise the role played, at least factually now, however you might like it to be, by the UK Government and the UK Parliament and the extent to which they are redistributing financial resources, at least, from England to the other three nations? And isn't that a perspective that looms over the debate? I find your document most convincing when you talk about the specifics and some of the frustrations that you have faced as a Welsh Government in dealing with the UK Government on the joint ministerial architecture that you faced, and in particular the promises 18 months ago on which there appears to have been little, if any, movement. But the document as a whole emphasises a convention, equality, and you speak from general principles. And I think that is much harder when you consider that the UK Government and UK Parliament are not just the equivalents of the Welsh, the Scottish and the Northern Ireland institutions, but speak both for a nation, England, which constitutes over five sixths of the population of these isles, and also for a United Kingdom Government that has all those non-devolved functions. And while I'm not arguing against you, I just wonder as to how realistic it is as an approach to demand equality from first principles, and wonder if you would be better advised to focus on some of the very persuasive arguments you have on the specifics of how the current system isn't working and could be improved. Could I also just slightly question, technically, one of the areas where you've been going? You refer to the Government of Wales Act 2006, and footnote the relevant bit. You say that our institutions 'are a permanent part of the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements' - that's stated in legislation. But you then say that this may not be the permanent protection that a simple reading of it might imply. And you go on to say: 'it is further declared that the devolved institutions "are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Wales/Scotland voting in a referendum."' Can I just question: does that also come from the Government of Wales Act, and are you proposing to change that? Because, elsewhere in the document, the condition you put is not a referendum of the people of Wales, but the agreement of this institution. Does that reflect your experiences in the EU referendum? Is it an intentional move from allowing a referendum of Wales to decide on the future of this place to saying that, irrespective of what the people of Wales may think in a referendum, this place could never be abolished, except by its own decision? Could I also just ask a little bit about the courts and legal parts you have - I think 18 and 19 of the paper? We have Lord Thomas launching his report at, I think, breakfast time next Thursday, and I very much look forward to hearing what he has to say. Do you prejudge anything of what he says in this report? Previously, and Adam referred to it just now, there was a debate on whether we should have a separate jurisdiction, and then there were people who referred to it as a distinct jurisdiction. In this report, you refer to a discrete court system and discrete jurisdiction. Is that an important distinction of meaning? Is it an adjective that is mid way between the previous two adjectives, or am I reading too much into that? I also just encourage you to look not just at the outcome in terms of who the judges are. You refer, I think persuasively, to the case for having someone with knowledge of Welsh law as a member of the Supreme Court, but there is also the issue of how the most senior judges are appointed. We have a panel, I think, of five, and it will be two of the most senior judges, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Supreme Court, and then the heads of the three judicial appointments commissions. So, there's just one for the whole of England and Wales, from that perspective, one for Scotland, and one out of the panel of five for Northern Ireland. It does seem to give an awful lot of weight to Scotland and particularly Northern Ireland and really very little weight to Wales, and I just wonder: as well as looking for that one Supreme Court justice, should we also be looking at reviewing the way in which senior judges are appointed?
Welsh: Rwy'n eich canmol chi, Prif Weinidog, am y ddogfen hon ac am eich cynigion diddorol chi, a hefyd am eich awydd i gymryd rhan mewn dadl ledled y DU yn hytrach na chyfyngu hyn i fanylion datganoli yng Nghymru. Rydych chi'n dweud na fydd Plaid Cymru byth yn gweld y risgiau'n gorbwyso gwobrwyon annibyniaeth - y maen nhw o leiaf, o bosibl, hyd 2030, ac rwy'n credu mai dyna'r dyddiad y maen nhw'n ei roi ar gyfer eu refferendwm. Ond rydych chi wedi rhoi amddiffyniad llawn iawn o'r Deyrnas Unedig heddiw. Rwyf i wedi teimlo bod rhai o'ch Gweinidogion chi ac yn sicr rai o Aelodau'r meinciau cefn wedi cloffi ynghylch y mater hwnnw, ond ni wnaethoch chi heddiw o gwbl, ac am hynny rwy'n diolch i chi. Mae corff eich dogfen chi yn dechrau drwy ddweud mai'r ffordd orau o weld y Deyrnas Unedig erbyn hyn, beth bynnag ei tharddiad hanesyddol, yw fel cymdeithas wirfoddol o genhedloedd ar ffurf gwladwriaeth amlwladol y mae ei haelodau yn rhannu ac yn ailddosbarthu adnoddau a risgiau ymysg ei gilydd i hybu eu diddordebau cyffredin. Mae hwn yn ddisgrifiad eithaf allweddol o'r undeb, ond mae hefyd yn cydnabod y swyddogaeth sydd gan Lywodraeth y DU a Senedd y DU, yn ffeithiol ar hyn o bryd o leiaf, sut bynnag y byddech chi'n hoffi hynny, ac i ba raddau y maen nhw'n ailddosbarthu adnoddau ariannol, ar leiaf, o Loegr i'r tair cenedl arall? Ac onid yw hwnnw'n safbwynt sy'n gysgod dros y ddadl? Mae eich dogfen chi yn fy argyhoeddi i fwyaf pan soniwch am y manylion a rhai o'r rhwystredigaethau sydd wedi eich wynebu yn Llywodraeth Cymru wrth ymdrin â Llywodraeth y DU ynglŷn â'r strwythurau gweinidogol ar y cyd yr oeddech chi'n eu hwynebu, ac yn benodol yr addewidion a gawsoch chi 18 mis yn ôl yr ymddengys nad oes fawr ddim symudiad wedi bod arnynt, os o gwbl. Ond mae'r ddogfen yn ei chyfanrwydd yn pwysleisio confensiwn, cydraddoldeb, ac rydych chi'n siarad ar sail egwyddorion cyffredinol. Ac rwy'n credu bod hynny'n llawer anos pan fyddwch chi o'r farn nad yw Llywodraeth y DU a Senedd y DU yn cyfateb i'r sefydliadau yng Nghymru, yr Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon, ond eu bod nhw'n siarad ar ran y genedl, sef Lloegr, sy'n cynnwys dros bum rhan o chwech o boblogaeth yr ynysoedd hyn, yn ogystal â Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig sydd â'r holl swyddogaethau hynny sydd heb eu datganoli. Ac er nad wyf i'n dadlau yn eich erbyn chi, rwy'n holi pa mor realistig yw mynnu cydraddoldeb o egwyddorion cychwynnol, ac yn meddwl tybed a fyddai'n well ichi ganolbwyntio ar rai o'r dadleuon argyhoeddiadol iawn sydd gennych o ran y manylion ynglŷn â sut mae'r system yn methu a sut y gellid gwella hynny. A gaf i fwrw rhyw ychydig o amheuaeth hefyd, yn dechnegol felly, ar un o'r meysydd yr ydych chi wedi bod yn anelu ato? Rydych chi'n cyfeirio at Ddeddf Llywodraeth Cymru 2006, ac yn y troednodyn mae'r rhan berthnasol. Rydych chi'n dweud bod ein sefydliadau yn rhan barhaol o drefniadau cyfansoddiadol y Deyrnas Unedig - mae hynny'n cael ei gyhoeddi yn y ddeddfwriaeth. Ond rydych chi'n dweud wedyn efallai nad yr amddiffyniad parhaol yw hwnnw y gallai darlleniad syml ohono ei awgrymu. Ac yna fe ewch chi ymlaen i ddweud: rhoddir mynegiad pellach nad yw'r sefydliadau datganoledig i'w diddymu ac eithrio ar sail penderfyniad gan bobl Cymru/yr Alban drwy bleidleisio mewn refferendwm. A gaf i holi: a yw hynny hefyd yn dod o Ddeddf Llywodraeth Cymru, ac a ydych chi'n bwriadu newid hynny? Oherwydd, mewn man arall yn y ddogfen, nid refferendwm i bobl Cymru yw'r amod a roddir gennych chi, ond cydsyniad y sefydliad hwn. A yw hynny'n adlewyrchu eich profiadau chi yn refferendwm yr UE? Ai symudiad bwriadol yw hwn oddi wrth ganiatáu refferendwm i Gymru benderfynu ar ddyfodol y lle hwn i ddweud, beth bynnag fydd barn pobl Cymru mewn refferendwm, na ellid byth â diddymu'r lle hwn, ac eithrio drwy ei benderfyniad ef ei hun? A gaf i eich holi chi ychydig am y llysoedd a'r rhannau cyfreithiol sydd gennych chi - rwy'n meddwl mai rhannau 18 a 19 yn y papur? Mae gennym yr Arglwydd Thomas yn lansio ei adroddiad amser brecwast ddydd Iau nesaf, rwy'n credu, ac rwy'n edrych ymlaen yn fawr at glywed beth fydd ganddo ef i'w ddweud. A ydych chi'n gallu barnu o flaen llaw unrhyw beth y bydd ef yn ei ddweud yn yr adroddiad hwn? O'r blaen, ac fe gyfeiriodd Adam at hyn gynnau fach, roedd yna ddadl ynghylch a ddylem ni gael awdurdodaeth ar wahân, ac wedyn roedd pobl yn cyfeirio at honno fel awdurdodaeth neilltuol. Yn yr adroddiad hwn, rydych chi'n cyfeirio at system o lysoedd ar wahân ac awdurdodaeth ar wahân. A yw hwnnw'n wahaniaeth pwysig o ran ystyr? Ai disgrifiad yw hwn sydd hanner ffordd rhwng y ddau ddisgrifiad blaenorol, neu a wyf i'n darllen gormod i mewn i hynny? Rwyf i'n eich annog chi hefyd i beidio ag edrych ar y canlyniad yn unig o ran pwy yw'r beirniaid. Rydych chi'n cyfeirio, ac yn argyhoeddiadol yn fy marn i, at y ddadl dros gael rhywun sydd â gwybodaeth am gyfraith Cymru yn aelod o'r Goruchaf Lys, ond mae'r mater hefyd yn ymwneud â'r modd y penodir y barnwyr uwch. Mae gennym ni banel, rwy'n credu, o bump, ac fe geir dau o'r barnwyr uchaf, Arglwydd Brif Ustus, Meistr y Rholiau, Llywydd y Goruchaf Lys, ac yna benaethiaid y tri chomisiwn penodiadau barnwrol. Felly, dim ond un ar gyfer Cymru a Lloegr gyfan, o'r safbwynt hwnnw, un ar gyfer yr Alban, ac un o'r panel o bump ar gyfer Gogledd Iwerddon. Mae'n ymddangos bod hynny'n rhoi llawer iawn o bwys i'r Alban ac yn enwedig i Ogledd Iwerddon ac ychydig iawn o bwys i Gymru. Tybed, yn ogystal â chwilio am yr un ynad yn y Goruchaf Lys, a ddylem ni ystyried adolygu'r ffordd y mae uwch-farnwyr yn cael eu penodi ynddi hefyd?