How will the economy be affected by SNP MPs; will it be for richer or for poorer and

.string.

"Devolution" of England into regions is, in my view, simply a recipe for constant in-fighting for another buck from a central Government which would eventually hardly exist at all plus another layer of expensive and self-important local politicians and their local gin palaces.

England (and the UK come to that) is a geographically small country, artificially splitting it into smaller and smaller pieces is just plain daft.

Naturally the SNP, in the form of the meddlesome Sturgeon and supported by her devoted acolytes, has cynically suggested they will support this method of Government for England, all in the guise of working for the Union in a spirit of friendship.

Make no mistake - There is nothing friendly about it, all is subsumed by the separatist agenda.

The SNP is simply promoting a Divide and Screw policy and has no altruistic motive in it at all.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

string wrote:

Well that's as good a way as avoiding an issue as any I suppose.

Sigh.. which bit did I avoid answering ? Am happy to discuss further. But you really, really must get over this persistent confusion you seem to have between MP's and MSP's. It's muddying your views and arguments. Scottish MP's cannot vote in Holyrood any more than English ones can.

And to be fair. You also avoided my question re EVEL and the knock on effects to Scottish devolved budgets as 'secondary' issues. Perhaps you could turn your attention to that instead of deflecting.

Sighs all round.

Well although you stated that you sort of agreed with at least some of what I wrote you rubbished the concept of EVEL in your reply to Generali so it was entirely unclear what your opinion really was.

Anyway, to be specific, I will reply to your post even though I think you know very well the meaning of what I posted.

The second para first. Voting on an English matter deals with the primary issue of the effect on England, consequent effects are secondary issues and consequent effects of the secondary issues are tertiary issues. Whether those consequent issues are small or important or Scotland friendly or unfriendly is not addressed. But those latter issues are precisely is why I favour (as do the Tories apparently) non-English MPs joining the debate and having a vote to quantify their opinion.

Maybe if one has a habit of whinging first and thinking later, one might construe that as some sort of slight on Scotland but that’s SNP whinge mode for you.

On the first para, of course there is a difference between MPs and SMPs, but don’t be trite; it does not have a particular relevance to the post.

But look at it this way then.

The Scots have their own Parliament where Devolved Issues, which are now about to be significantly expanded, are dealt with exclusively by Scottish MPs (SMPs for the pedantic).

In England, however, English MPs do not have exclusive rights to control their own affairs on matters corresponding to those which are devolved in Scotland, because Scottish MPs can also vote and have their vote be part of the determinant factor in the decision.

That is a democratic imbalance which up to now has been tolerated for two reasons first because the amount of devolution was minor and secondly because the majority of the Westminster MPs were members of National Parties and thus cognisant (and thus presumably sympathetic) to issues decided in Scotland which would affect the rest of the UK. Now with the increased devolution and predominance of SNP MPs and their allegiance and control by a party that sees itself as foreign to England and in competition with it (room for some deflection there Shakey) , the status quo is quite simply unacceptable. Since the democratic power exercisable by English MPs has become significantly less in relation to Scotland and remaining at a diminished level for England). The Balance has changed.

That is why I posted:

On the matter of "equality" or "tiers" amongst MPs, it is worth remembering that the new Devolution settlement will further reduce the entitlement of English MPs to vote on Scottish Matters, so it is right and proper to address that issue and re-balance MPs' rights.

.So that is the background as to why I take my stance on maintaining the ability of Scottish MPs in Westminster to debate and vote on (but not decide on) English matters.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I thought that was Osborne and his 'northern powerhouses' ?

Both main parties are all for the Balkanisation of England rather than a single parliament. Scottish style devolution for England scares the Westminster elite for some reason.

wotsthat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well then, we'll just have to hope that the SNP maintain the same levels of outward cohesion and discipline, as they've shown in Holyrood for the last 8 years in power ( under Salmond ). They've started well down the same road in terms of a 'team'. We'll see, like you said, if it continues.

The Westminster SNP MP's could be replaced by autonomous drones under the control of Queen Nicola.

Not great for anyone with an SNP MP if you contact them about a local matter only to be told 'I'll have to ask Nicola'.

Shakethedisease

wotsthat wrote: »

The Westminster SNP MP's could be replaced by autonomous drones under the control of Queen Nicola.

Not great for anyone with an SNP MP if you contact them about a local matter only to be told 'I'll have to ask Nicola'.

Don't be silly. My MP was down the beach this morning picking up litter along with loads of local people on a 'tidy up' mission. That's how you deal with local matters... The last MP hadn't been seen anywhere near the locals for years. And his remarks after being unseated were something along the lines of 'oh good, now I can tell them all to F off !! '... :eek: http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/brian-donohoe-s-f-word-goodbye-to-constituents-1-3772868

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Don't be silly. My MP was down the beach this morning picking up litter along with loads of local people on a 'tidy up' mission. That's how you deal with local matters... The last MP hadn't been seen anywhere near the locals for years. And his remarks after being unseated were something along the lines of 'oh good, now I can tell them all to F off !! '... :eek: http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/brian-donohoe-s-f-word-goodbye-to-constituents-1-3772868

obviously, Tories, Labourite, LibDems and other NON SNP people never pick up litter

well they won't would they?

sad really

wotsthat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Don't be silly. My MP was down the beach this morning picking up litter along with loads of local people on a 'tidy up' mission. That's how you deal with local matters... The last MP hadn't been seen anywhere near the locals for years. And his remarks after being unseated were something along the lines of 'oh good, now I can tell them all to F off !! '... :eek: http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/brian-donohoe-s-f-word-goodbye-to-constituents-1-3772868

Even an SNP MP doesn't need to check in with Queen Nicola to know that picking up litter is 'A good thing'. An autonomous drone could work that out.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

obviously, Tories, Labourite, LibDems and other NON SNP people never pick up litter

well they won't would they?

sad really

Only you could make an MP getting their hands dirty among 'local people' into a bad thing. The above illustrates the point re social media. Now everyone in Central Ayrshire knows that their MP was out picking up litter today... because it was all over Twitter/Facebook. We have no idea what the other parties do.. because they mainly prefer to talk through newspapers still. A dwindling resource these days, or only accessible through a paywall.

You and wotsthat between you have managed to post the image another twice after I did. Positive reinforcement. I like it. And it's got to be better than the ex-Labour MP who'd like to tell his previous constituents about how he's really felt representing them all those years... ( ie F off lol )..

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Sighs all round.

Well although you stated that you sort of agreed with at least some of what I wrote you rubbished the concept of EVEL in your reply to Generali so it was entirely unclear what your opinion really was.

EVEL is something I agree with in principle. However, I don't think the breaking the convention of 'all MP's are equal in every vote' in the HOC is something to take lightly. And not something that should be passed without proper cross party debate and scrutiny. Certainly not through a 'standing order'.

Anyway, to be specific, I will reply to your post even though I think you know very well the meaning of what I posted.

The second para first. Voting on an English matter deals with the primary issue of the effect on England, consequent effects are secondary issues and consequent effects of the secondary issues are tertiary issues. Whether those consequent issues are small or important or Scotland friendly or unfriendly is not addressed. But those latter issues are precisely is why I favour (as do the Tories apparently) non-English MPs joining the debate and having a vote to quantify their opinion.

It's when those other MP's actually get to vote that is the issue. If it's to decide if it is truly an English only law, then that's fine. If it's English only MP's that get to decide on what's an English only law... then that will cause problems. Because once it's been decided, Scottish, Welsh and NI MP's can 'vote' how they like, even if it's obvious there WILL be knock on effects to their own constituents. It will make very little difference as they are outnumbered.

Maybe if one has a habit of whinging first and thinking later, one might construe that as some sort of slight on Scotland but that’s SNP whinge mode for you.

On the first para, of course there is a difference between MPs and SMPs, but don’t be trite; it does not have a particular relevance to the post.

But look at it this way then.

The Scots have their own Parliament where Devolved Issues, which are now about to be significantly expanded, are dealt with exclusively by Scottish MPs (SMPs for the pedantic).

There are already significant problems with the new Scotland bill re 'vetos' in both directions. And it's MSP's, not SMP's ( for the pedantic ).

In England, however, English MPs do not have exclusive rights to control their own affairs on matters corresponding to those which are devolved in Scotland, because Scottish MPs can also vote and have their vote be part of the determinant factor in the decision.

To be on a truly equal basis then England needs a devolved administration, elected on a PR basis and the Barnett Formula applied to English spending.

That is a democratic imbalance which up to now has been tolerated for two reasons first because the amount of devolution was minor and secondly because the majority of the Westminster MPs were members of National Parties and thus cognisant (and thus presumably sympathetic) to issues decided in Scotland which would affect the rest of the UK. Now with the increased devolution and predominance of SNP MPs and their allegiance and control by a party that sees itself as foreign to England and in competition with it (room for some deflection there Shakey) , the status quo is quite simply unacceptable. Since the democratic power exercisable by English MPs has become significantly less in relation to Scotland and remaining at a diminished level for England). The Balance has changed.

There are exactly the same number of Scottish MP's as there were in 2010. Only the party has changed. The SNP are only 56 out of 650 MP's. There is a Tory majority govt in place. There is simply no need to feel so 'threatened'. Once again, 59 Scottish MP's in 2010.. same now.

That is why I posted:.So that is the background as to why I take my stance on maintaining the ability of Scottish MPs in Westminster to debate and vote on (but not decide on) English matters.

Thank you. I always appreciate your posts, even if we don't agree on very much from our very different perspectives.. ( and even when you call me a whinger ).

Generali

Tromking wrote: »

Both main parties are all for the Balkanisation of England rather than a single parliament. Scottish style devolution for England scares the Westminster elite for some reason.

It's because the majority of English people neither want nor see the need for it.