Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

kabayiri

So the English get EVEL, and the SNP get some ammunition to fuel their political separatist cause...

It sounds like a win-win to me, and yet people are still complaining.

I won't judge EVEL until it has been up and running for a while. I suspect it's impact will be rather less dramatic than all this noise suggests.

elantan

kabayiri wrote: »

So the English get EVEL, and the SNP get some ammunition to fuel their political separatist cause...

It sounds like a win-win to me, and yet people are still complaining.

I won't judge EVEL until it has been up and running for a while. I suspect it's impact will be rather less dramatic than all this noise suggests.

I would agree ... it is a good thing if it helps Scotland become independent

and you are totally right we should really see how this plays out in real life, just a shame they didnt choose to have a seperate English parliament ( or two) which would've been much better for the people imho

Leanne1812

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

You were there were you?

Please tell exactly what did happen then.

Was it anything to do with the English hating scots making things up and causing trouble because they hate..........zzzzzzzz

I don't know why I even bother.......

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

You were there were you?

Please tell exactly what did happen then.

Was it anything to do with the English hating scots making things up and causing trouble because they hate..........zzzzzzzz

I don't know why I even bother.......

tell me


at Holyrood, does evey member always listen to every and all debates before voting?


or is this simply one more moan from the usual SNP whingers that will find any nonsense to add to their perceived greviences and create dissent where none should exist.

.string.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why shouldn't English voters decide
English only matters? Funny how everybody complains when the
boot is on the foot. That's a consequence of life. Every action
will create a reaction. You never know England may vote for
Independence itself one day. Just let the nationalists of the
other nations get on with it.

This is a point worth emphasising.



The ground that the SNP like to argue on relates to the rights
of the MPs and how neither set of MPs can vote on Scottish
Issues; changing that affects the "rights" of the MPs, or so
they claim.



However those MPs represent their constituents who are really
the ones affected by the issue.



Scottish constituents (residents) can vote so that their
interests are taken care of in Scotland and England and the
overarching UK. English constituents, on the other hand, can
vote for their interests to be taken care of in only England and
the overarching UK.

The English don’t want another expensive politician-filled
talking shop, so no devolved English Parliament. The Scots
can, however, allow their Westminster MPs a vote in Holyrood
if they want. (*)

So it is the voters themselves that are disenfranchised by the
issue, not the MPs themselves, who have different
responsibilities, that's all.



It is the rights of the people that are important.



(*) - not unlike the system I would favour for the European
Parliament where I’d like it to be populated by MPs from the
constituent national “Parliaments” --- make them work for their
money. Such would ensure consistency between national and
European representation.

Leanne1812

CLAPTON wrote: »

tell me


at Holyrood, does evey member always listen to every and all debates before voting?


or is this simply one more moan from the usual SNP whingers that will find any nonsense to add to their perceived greviences and create dissent where none should exist.

I simply wrote what I heard on the radio. BBC Scotland Big Debate if you're interested.

What you wrote 'nonsense' was an ill thought out remark considering you really have no idea whether this occurred or not. If you had elaborated like you have in this post I might have understood your remark.

You didn't answer the question either.

.string.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Would you dispute what this MP has written in his blog about today's vote?

http://tommysheppardmp.scot/index.php/my-blogs/entry/made-some-history-not-in-a-good-way

I certainly would dispute it, It's merely an irrational and hypocritical bunch of nonsense.

Some examples:

He states that the EVEL legislation is not about "devolving power to the people they are about keeping power for themselves" ( the Tories")

That's just political spin aimed at nullifying the Tories, there are good Democratic reasons ... See my last post.

He states that "they are doing this in such a way as to fuel distrust and resentment amongst the people of Scotland". This is hypocritical spin, it is the SNP that take this course, as well you know. The other major parties are not.

Then there's that business about some MPs having more rights than others, see also my last post.

That stuff about tuition fees is wooly irrational nonsense. I don't like tuition fees either but the SNP set their priorities and the Tories set theirs.

The rest is just what-if scare mongering.

The guy is just a meandering stooge of the SNP collective, unable to argue his case in any coherent way.

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I simply wrote what I heard on the radio. BBC Scotland Big Debate if you're interested.

What you wrote 'nonsense' was an ill thought out remark considering you really have no idea whether this occurred or not. If you had elaborated like you have in this post I might have understood your remark.

You didn't answer the question either.

the substantial points are that:
-MPs had a change to give their views
-MPs had a chance to listen to the views of others
-MPs had a chance to vote


yes that is fair.


what exactly is your problem with that?

.string.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

... the EVEL law specifically excludes matters which affect the Barnett funding settlement, and only covers matters which affect England Only.

That's. A very significant statement, Hamish. I had always thought that it would be the case in practice because any significant general effect on another part of the UK would be flagged and give cause for an all-time inclusive vote. Herbaceous be nuisance claims by the them but they would find it hard to make such cases time after time.

But you say it is in the proposed legislation. Do you have a link you can give? It would be useful to quote that every time an acolyte claims they don't have a say in matters which affect Scotland.

Speaking of which, I have only heard one reason given for the SNP wanting to vote on English Matters, and that is always about money: namely it is clear that the SNP would vote for a measure that have an extra penny for their budget and no if they lost a penny. So nothing about the merits of a proposal.

It seems to me that they have a flawed argument based on a false premise and furthermore want to vote on purely English matters for ignoble reasons.

elantan

It will be interesting to see what happens ... if it sticks purely to those matters that concern England only then that will be good, but an example given today was the Heathrow extension which has a £5bn Barnett consequential ...

If that happens I imagine it will go down like a lead balloon.

The interesting thing that few seem to have picked up on ( although I note Shakey did) it really doesn't effect the SNP much as they don't vote on English only matters ( not even the fox hunting) but the effect it will have on labour will be painful ( well.. that is when labour sort themselves out and eventually start gaining seats in Scotland)