Llywydd, I thank the Member for those points. I'll take his last point first. I believe that there is a wider case for a reform of the way that judicial appointments are made. I think it needs to come into line with the twenty-first century. It needs to look at the outcomes that it secures in terms of diversity of people who get appointed to these very important jobs. So, I think he raises a more general point than the specific one, which deserves wider consideration. 

I've tried to respect Lord Thomas's report by not trespassing too much into that territory today. I wouldn't read too much into adjectival exactitude and we'll only have to wait a week before we see Lord Thomas's report and we'll be able to debate these issues on the basis of it. 

He is right to say that there is a relatively instrumental sense of a union in this paper. I have very little sentimental attachment to the United Kingdom myself. I don't believe in the future of the United Kingdom from that premise. I believe in it because I think it works for Wales, I think it works for Welsh people, and that that's the case that we have to make for it. The politics of identity has moved a long way in my lifetime, and my sentimental attachment is to Wales. I've always thought of myself as Welsh first and then a member of the United Kingdom after that, but I also believe that being a member of the United Kingdom is right for Wales. So, you're right—it's the practical case for the union we make here, rather than an appeal to something as evaporative as British values or arguments of that sort. 

I think the Member made a very important point about the English question and how that gets resolved. It's beyond the scope of this paper, but it is a very real issue. We don't argue in the paper for equality on the basis of Wales having a vote, Scotland having a vote, England having a vote, Northern Ireland having a vote. We don't think that is credible in a union when five sixths of the population belongs to one of the four participants. What we argue for is equality of participation, parity of engagement, equality of respect—those qualities I think would go a great deal towards making the institutions of the United Kingdom work effectively in the future. It's all the things that we've rehearsed on the floor here before that get in the way of that—why our joint ministerial forums can only ever meet in London, can only ever be chaired by an English Minister, why a UK Government alone can set an agenda, can write the minutes, can—. You know, those are not parity of participation principles, and those are the things that we argue for in this paper as consolidating a sense of an United Kingdom in which everybody has an equal stake, while not arguing that everybody is of an equal size and can therefore expect to have, as I say, participation on the basis of one card in everybody's hand. 

As to how the National Assembly could be wound up, well, in the end that is in the hands of the Welsh people. That's how we were established—by a referendum—and, if we were ever to be undone, it would have to be by the decision of the people who put us here. This institution would have a part to play in shaping that decision, but the sovereignty, in the popular sense that we outline it here, belongs in the hands of the people.