Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Leanne1812

Listening to the big debate and a scots mp spoke of the Scotland bill amendements proposed by 58 scots MP's in the commons. The Tories without even listening to the debates beforehand rush into the chambers to vote against. Is that fair?

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Listening to the big debate and a scots mp spoke of the Scotland bill amendements proposed by 58 scots MP's in the commons. The Tories without even listening to the debates beforehand rush into the chambers to vote against. Is that fair?

nonsense..........................

wotsthat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It will soon. Most of those who are unaware of it soon will be the next time there's an important bill to be passed that is contentious in it's 'Englishness only'. Media like the Daily Mail will make sure of it. Those that are aware have high expectations of it.. despite the fact that truly English only bills are pretty rare these days, and are expecting to be able to pass bills, for example, on the NHS/Education etc etc with impunity now EVEL is in place. They're going to be pretty disappointed that this won't happen.. and will push further to exclude non-English MP's and widen the remit of EVEL. Yesterday is only the first step.

Like those that say the SNP will never be satisfied. So it will be with EVEL imo.

So there's no real problem with EVEL but more of a concern that the definition of English issues could be widened to include Scottish (or part Scottish) issues?

I have to admit I needed to google whatever it was that happened yesterday and I'm more interested in it than anyone I know (internet friends excepted). The Daily Mail are going to have to go some to rile up some English nationalism over this issue - it's something that exercises constitutionalists and very few beside.

Good on the SNP though - they've managed to open up a small chink of discord where none really existed before. Baby steps.

Generali

wotsthat wrote: »

So there's no real problem with EVEL but more of a concern that the definition of English issues could be widened to include Scottish (or part Scottish) issues?

I have to admit I needed to google whatever it was that happened yesterday and I'm more interested in it than anyone I know (internet friends excepted). The Daily Mail are going to have to go some to rile up some English nationalism over this issue - it's something that exercises constitutionalists and very few beside.

Good on the SNP though - they've managed to open up a small chink of discord where none really existed before. Baby steps.

Absolutely spot on. The SNP have to play a difficult hand right now. They have to continue to sow discord and keep the hatred of 'Westminster' (aka the English) going while at the same time avoiding actual independence because if they get that then the Scots people will never forgive them.

elantan

Generali wrote: »

Absolutely spot on. The SNP have to play a difficult hand right now. They have to continue to sow discord and keep the hatred of 'Westminster' (aka the English) going while at the same time avoiding actual independence because if they get that then the Scots people will never forgive them.

I'm really struggling to understand your total lack of understanding regards West minister and not the English, are you incapable of understanding ?

elantan

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Listening to the big debate and a scots mp spoke of the Scotland bill amendements proposed by 58 scots MP's in the commons. The Tories without even listening to the debates beforehand rush into the chambers to vote against. Is that fair?

its very normal ... look at the Scotland bill ...

Shakethedisease

wotsthat wrote: »

So there's no real problem with EVEL but more of a concern that the definition of English issues could be widened to include Scottish (or part Scottish) issues?

I have to admit I needed to google whatever it was that happened yesterday and I'm more interested in it than anyone I know (internet friends excepted). The Daily Mail are going to have to go some to rile up some English nationalism over this issue - it's something that exercises constitutionalists and very few beside.

Good on the SNP though - they've managed to open up a small chink of discord where none really existed before. Baby steps.

No, it undermines the unitary value of Westminster. Quite considerably. Regardless of political parties. While much has been made of the SNP on this issue ( too much imo ) , it should be pointed out that 270 MP's from across the UK voted against it. Labour/Lib Dems/DUP etc also all against.

Are they 'opening up a small chink of discord' too ? Or is that just down the the SNP ? EVEL goes beyond political parties.

School pupils are taught about the British parliamentary system is that all MPs are considered equal and every member has a right to vote on every item of legislation. This will no longer be the case under Evel....

...But Labour and the Liberal Democrats are also opposed to Evel because it violates the cardinal principle that all MPs have equal voting rights on all bills. Mr Grayling insists that these rights remains under Evel as all MPs will vote on the final reading of all bills. This is disingenuous. English members will be able to prevent certain bills being voted upon at all because they have a veto.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/13890824.How__exactly__can_these_Evel_plans_work_/

Even if we take the SNP out of the equation, and imagine a resurgent Labour Lib Dem or the Green party... they will be unable to form a viable coalition in the future if their numbers are made up from outside England. Because if the Conservatives have a majority there, they can in effect veto what's debated at all. It's also unlikely that there will be any senior cabinet members in Westminster who come from outwith England.
If Miliband can be monstered for eating a bacon sandwich. Imagine a Chancellor who can't vote or debate parts of a key English bill. The Daily Mail et al would have a field day.

The principle of EVEL is a fair one. Using a quick 'rule change' back door method of withdrawing rights from MP's outwith England is quite another. And I suspect when it comes to things like the NHS in England, if it's decided that it's not an English only matter ( due to knock on effects to Barnett to Wales/Scotland/NI ).. there will be a 'How dare they' media backlash urging EVEL further.

wotsthat

elantan wrote: »

I'm really struggling to understand your total lack of understanding regards West minister and not the English, are you incapable of understanding ?

Nobody is fooled by transparent PC attempts to draw a distinction between Westminster and English.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, it undermines the unitary value of Westminster. Quite considerably. Regardless of political parties. While much has been made of the SNP on this issue ( too much imo ) , it should be pointed out that 270 MP's from across the UK voted against it. Labour/Lib Dems/DUP etc also all against.

Are they 'opening up a small chink of discord' too ? Or is that just down the the SNP ? EVEL goes beyond political parties.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/13890824.How__exactly__can_these_Evel_plans_work_/

Even if we take the SNP out of the equation, and imagine a resurgent Labour Lib Dem and or the Green party... they will be unable to form a viable coalition in the future if their numbers are made up from outside England. Because if the Conservatives have a majority there, they can in effect veto what's debated at all. It's also unlikely that there will be any senior cabinet members in Westminster who come from outwith England.
If Miliband can be monstered for eating a bacon sandwich. Imagine a Chancellor who can't vote or debate parts of a key English bill. The Daily Mail et al would have a field day.

The principle of EVEL is a fair one. Using a quick 'rule change' back door method of withdrawing rights from MP's outwith England is quite another. And I suspect when it comes to things like the NHS in England, if it's decided that it's not an English only matter ( due to knock on effects to Barnett to Wales/Scotland/NI ).. there will be a 'How dare they' media backlash urging EVEL further.

it would be absolutely right and correct that an MP of whatever party elected in, say Scotland, should not vote on English matters irrespective if they are a back bencher or a cabinet minister


however could you justify anything else?
are you suggesting different voting rights of cabinet ministers to ordinary MPs?


the only real solution is to abolish / suspend the parliaments of NI, Wales and Scotland for an indefinate time and set up a constitutional convention to recommend a way forward:
any such recommends should be subject to a UK wide referendum so the result has the support of the majority of the people of the UK

wotsthat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, it undermines the unitary value of Westminster. Quite considerably. Regardless of political parties. While much has been made of the SNP on this issue ( too much imo ) , it should be pointed out that 270 MP's from across the UK voted against it. Labour/Lib Dems/DUP etc also all against.

Are they 'opening up a small chink of discord' too ? Or is that just down the the SNP ? EVEL goes beyond political parties.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/13890824.How__exactly__can_these_Evel_plans_work_/

Even if we take the SNP out of the equation, and imagine a resurgent Labour Lib Dem or the Green party... they will be unable to form a viable coalition in the future if their numbers are made up from outside England. Because if the Conservatives have a majority there, they can in effect veto what's debated at all. It's also unlikely that there will be any senior cabinet members in Westminster who come from outwith England.
If Miliband can be monstered for eating a bacon sandwich. Imagine a Chancellor who can't vote or debate parts of a key English bill. The Daily Mail et al would have a field day.

The principle of EVEL is a fair one. Using a quick 'rule change' back door method of withdrawing rights from MP's outwith England is quite another. And I suspect when it comes to things like the NHS in England, if it's decided that it's not an English only matter ( due to knock on effects to Barnett to Wales/Scotland/NI ).. there will be a 'How dare they' media backlash urging EVEL further.

Yes, it's what our mutual friend from down under calls a beltway issue.