Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

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)

my understanding is that Nicola said they would vote on Fox hunting in England


http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-07-14/government-pull-vote-on-relaxing-fox-hunting-ban/

Enterprise_1701C

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/08/scottish-mps-vote-english-laws-nicola-sturgeon

Sturgeon is determined to set up as many "problems" as possible. Why should Scottish MPs get to vote on English matters. For that matter, if she is so worried about all MPs being included in such votes, maybe she should give the English the chance to vote on Scottish matters in their parliament.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

So you want to suspend all three devolved governments of the basis of this below ? EVEL like I said is a fair principle. Undermining the unitary nature of the way Westminster is run..if you're fine with that. That's ok too. But it's a very big step to take.. and I honestly doubt it will stop at one or 2 teeny little unnoticed bills a year. Not when it comes to the big issues and Scottish/Welsh and NI MP's still vote on them. Things like the English NHS is going to be contentious. I don't think there's any real denying that it will be.

Shakethedisease

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/08/scottish-mps-vote-english-laws-nicola-sturgeon

Sturgeon is determined to set up as many "problems" as possible. Why should Scottish MPs get to vote on English matters. For that matter, if she is so worried about all MPs being included in such votes, maybe she should give the English the chance to vote on Scottish matters in their parliament.

SNP ? They've only got 55 MP's.. there were another 215 English/Welsh and NI MP's voted against it too. They don't want EVEL either. So why is it just somehow just the SNP stirring things ?

Jeezo people seem to miss the very, very obvious sometimes here in their leg breaking quests to wag fingers at Nicola Sturgeon lol. More English MP's voted against EVEL than Scottish ones.

Leanne1812

CLAPTON wrote: »

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?

The Tories did not give their views nor listen to the views of others before rushing to the chamber to reject every single amendment.

Not the best example of unifying the union.

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

my understanding is that Nicola said they would vote on Fox hunting in England


http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-07-14/government-pull-vote-on-relaxing-fox-hunting-ban/

And then they didn't.

Do you regard her as a woman of her word? Interesting.

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/08/scottish-mps-vote-english-laws-nicola-sturgeon

Sturgeon is determined to set up as many "problems" as possible. Why should Scottish MPs get to vote on English matters. For that matter, if she is so worried about all MPs being included in such votes, maybe she should give the English the chance to vote on Scottish matters in their parliament.

Even Scottish MPs can't vote on Scottish matters in the Scottish parliament.

After EVEL, some in Scotland will wonder what's the point of sending MPs to Westminster.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I do read his stuff. You should practice what you preach occasionally. It was Kevin Hague feeding Andrew Neil those, now debunked and shown to be false figures. I and many other's say Kevin Hague exchanging tweets with Neil then boasting about how those figures on the Daily Politics 'look familiar' * wink wink.



And whatever you have to say about Wings, and I confess it's not somewhere I read on a daily or even weekly basis ( though I see his Twitter updates). He's been far more successful at what he does than Kevin Hague is. Personalities aside.

And what was your point iin the above exactly?

Did I suggest Hague was an investigative journalist? Don't think he even describes himself as that. Unlike the Rev.

The link I provided was to an opinion blog which I read and agreed with.

As it happens I was reading Neil's Twitter feed at the time Hague passed over figures. Amazing how much you can find out on people's Twitter feeds without actually participating on Twitter yourself.

Anyway your response reminded me of an article I read earlier in the month called 'What reading a Wings Over Scotland rant does for the Nat mind ' which I think is rather apt in the circumstances.

Can be found on

http//:ahdinnaeken.wordpress.com

Generali

wotsthat wrote: »

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

Correct.

(If anyone cares about the etymology it's a US term: in Washington there is a ring-road called the Beltway and pretty much all politics in DC is done inside that circle. Thus a Beltway issue is one that is only discussed inside the Beltway).

EVEL is a prime example of that; most people don't give a flying fox about it, just politicians and political geeks like me and the rest of the loonies on this thread. <<geek smilie>>

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

And what was your point iin the above exactly?

Did I suggest Hague was an investigative journalist? Don't think he even describes himself as that. Unlike the Rev.

The link I provided was to an opinion blog which I read and agreed with.

I didn't describe either of them as actual 'investigative journalists'.

He does what a lot of investigative journalism used to do. Most of the media these days just parrot press releases and lay actual journalists off.

My point was that you said that no-one could take Wings seriously, due to his unashamed bias. Then went on to post a blog link from someone who is also unashamedly biased.

As it happens I was reading Neil's Twitter feed at the time Hague passed over figures. Amazing how much you can find out on people's Twitter feeds without actually participating on Twitter yourself.

Anyway your response reminded me of an article I read earlier in the month called 'What reading a Wings Over Scotland rant does for the Nat mind ' which I think is rather apt in the circumstances.

Can be found on

http//:ahdinnaeken.wordpress.com

No-one's interested in character assassinations which have nothing much to do with the topic and everything to do with 'slagging other people off who don't agree with me'. It's one of the reasons this thread has probably lasted so long. I for one simply stopped responding to those who are interested in posting up stuff primarily concerned with name calling and treating 'nat minds' like it's some sort of (1.4 million people type) embarrassing disease or mental disorder to decide to vote SNP. It just stirs up unwarranted ill feeling.

I posted up wings to back up and balance a questionable point that was made by another poster. Nothing more.

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

The Tories did not give their views nor listen to the views of others before rushing to the chamber to reject every single amendment.

Not the best example of unifying the union.

Tell me : what did the SNP say that was new or unexpected?

Did a single SNP MP change their mind after listening to the other opinions?
Did a single one vote for EVEL?

Not the best example of unifying the union.