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

kabayiri

If you are correct Shakey then we will see increased polarisation between England and Scotland.

SNP support will increase.

The Tories have significant political capital to gain by painting this increase in support as rebellious and the SNP complaints about EVEL will be painted as unfair to the mainstream public down here.

I don't really mind whether Scotland gets independence. If it saves the rest of UK money as a result of no subsidy payments then this is a bonus.

I'd like a long sustained period of a right of centre stable government down here, which pretty much means the Tories.

The SNP are clearly helping this to come to fruition

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There is definitely another head of steam building. I just hope they a while longer until the damage done to Smith etc becomes insurmountable and Scotland finally realises that all that happens when they send ANY political party down there to represent them... is that they're expected to sit on select committees, behave and become mere lobby fodder. God forbid they actually go there to do what they said they would and what they were voted in to achieve.

I remain to be convinced that the pro-independence tipping point will inevitably come as you say.
The last time the Scottish people were asked and push came to shove the primacy of Westminster over Holyrood was chosen by them.
The biggest hurdle still remains. The economic case for an Iindependent Scotland has yet to be made, a symptom of that thorny issue was the SNP fudge on FFA yesterday.
The dream is still alive though!

browniej

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Last night the Tories broke the Vow/Smith Commission. The very first line of the Vow in fact.. stating that Holyrood would be made permanent. Then FFA was voted down twice

The original wording of the Scotland Bill contains this clause;

"(1A) A Scottish Parliament is recognised as a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements."

SNP's amendment wanted;

"(1A) The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitution.
(1B) Subsection (1) or (1A) may be repealed only if—
(a) the Scottish Parliament has consented to the proposed repeal, and
(b) a referendum has been held in Scotland on the proposed repeal and a majority of those voting at the referendum have consented to it."

That amendment was voted down which is not the same thing as voting down Holyrood being made permanent - except of course in SNP speak. The original clause remains so how has the Vow/Smith Commission been broken?

In fact if you think about it legally, if clause 1a on the original wording was capable of being repealed, then clause 1a and 1b would also be capable of being repealed.

Shakethedisease

browniej wrote: »

The original wording of the Scotland Bill contains this clause;

"(1A) A Scottish Parliament is recognised as a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements."

SNP's amendment wanted;

"(1A) The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitution.
(1B) Subsection (1) or (1A) may be repealed only if—
(a) the Scottish Parliament has consented to the proposed repeal, and
(b) a referendum has been held in Scotland on the proposed repeal and a majority of those voting at the referendum have consented to it."

That amendment was voted down which is not the same thing as voting down Holyrood being made permanent - except of course in SNP speak. The original clause remains so how has the Vow/Smith Commission been broken?

In fact if you think about it legally, if clause 1a on the original wording was capable of being repealed, then clause 1a and 1b would also be capable of being repealed.

Then why vote against it as the Tories did ? I agree though. The Scottish Government isn't permanent and in theory Westminster could abolish it. This government can't bind future ones to its permanence while Scotland remains part of the union anyway.

The fact this this was voted against was hugely symbolic rather than anything else. Which is why I said there was no real reason for the Tories to vote against it. But they did so anyway. All the amendment meant would've been the Scottish government having options and a possible referendum should Westminster decide to get rid of Holyrood in future.

Very instructive for the path the Tories intend taking re Scotland and it's MP's, don't you think ?

A future British government could still dissolve the Scottish Parliament despite a cross-party agreement that it should be "made permanent", according to the peer who brokered a deal to firmly entrench Holyrood in UK law...

....Lord Smith's final report, which he has called the Smith Agreement, states: "The Scottish Parliament will be made permanent in UK legislation and given powers over how it is elected and run. The Scottish Government will similarly be made permanent."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/lord-smith-future-uk-government-could-dissolve-holyrood-despite-cross-par.113825952

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

I remain to be convinced that the pro-independence tipping point will inevitably come as you say.
The last time the Scottish people were asked and push came to shove the primacy of Westminster over Holyrood was chosen by them.
The biggest hurdle still remains. The economic case for an Iindependent Scotland has yet to be made, a symptom of that thorny issue was the SNP fudge on FFA yesterday.
The dream is still alive though!

We'll see. Devolution took two attempts. The second time had overwhelming support. To an extent it depends on how bad/good the Tories are over the next few years.. depending on one's viewpoint. And the possible prospect of them in power a further 5 years after this 5 will loom very large in terms of 'tipping points' imo. The majority Conservative govt and Scotland don't usually mix very well..

browniej

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Then why vote against it as the Tories did ?

Avoiding the question again?

To reiterate I asked why you stated that the Vow/Smith commission had been broken when it clearly hasn't as Clause 1 remains?;

"(1A) A Scottish Parliament is recognised as a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements."

So would you care to answer how the Vow/Smith commission has been broken?

I agree though. The Scottish Government isn't permanent and in theory Westminster could abolish it. This government can't bind future ones to its permanence while Scotland remains part of the union anyway.

Exactly.

The fact this this was voted against was hugely symbolic rather than anything else. Which is why I said there was no real reason for the Tories to vote against it. But they did so anyway. All the amendment meant would've been the Scottish government having options and a possible referendum should Westminster decide to get rid of Holyrood in future.

Legally it would have made no difference at all and in actual fact would have weakened any protection by introducing an exception to Clause 1a.

Very instructive for the path the Tories intend taking re Scotland and it's MP's, don't you think ?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/lord-smith-future-uk-government-could-dissolve-holyrood-despite-cross-par.113825952

The only thing that would make any difference would be a constitutional change and an abolition of the Westminster parliament.

So why would the Tories, or anyone else for that matter, allow a clause that actually weakens the original clause? Perhaps Scotland and its MPs ( or would that just in reality be the SNP MPs ) don't realise this?

Shakethedisease

browniej wrote: »

Avoiding the question again?

To reiterate I asked why you stated that the Vow/Smith commission had been broken when it clearly hasn't as Clause 1 remains?;

"(1A) A Scottish Parliament is recognised as a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements."

So would you care to answer how the Vow/Smith commission has been broken?

Symbolically broken if you prefer. That's what it looks like. September and all that came with it is still very fresh in people's minds. That the Tories saw fit to vote against something that doesn't really matter but was an important sign of goodwill to a lot of Scots. Just because it was an SNP amendment ?

The Vow, First line, bald statement.. :-

We are agreed that :- The Scottish Parliament is permanent....

But not really ? Mabye they shouldn't make statements like that in national newspapers a week before important referendums perhaps ? Why did they say it if they didn't actually mean it ? I would suggest that it's the other three parties that didn't have any idea what they were saying or offering to Scots voters.. rather than your own suggestion that it's SNP MP's that don't have a clue what was being offered !

Most people won't trawl though the legal aspects with a fine tooth comb. And I did agree with you over the meanings. The Vow seems to have been largely symbolic.. and it now seems that the Tories commitment to it was also, largely symbolic. Labour actually voted with the SNP, and the bill was defeated by 302 votes to 271. So the defeat was solely down to the Conservatives with a point that really didn't need to be made.

Also, this vote took place just before FFA was voted against twice, the HRA amendment ( <--- this one is causing most angst ). So taken in context rather than isolation...I think we rather get the jist of where this is all going.

But watching the Scotland Bill dribble through Westminster last night, the Tory majority flexing its muscles to knock back perfectly sound amendments, I found myself gripped by an irrational fury and overwhelming acidic, sense of disappointment. The bottom has finally fallen out of the bucket. I felt flat as a pancake.

This union could be saved and remade, but this bunch of clowns don't have the heads, hearts or guts to do it. In the intellectually slight, havering, verbally stumbling figure of Secretary of State Mundell -- the ambition and vision of this government is embodied. There is nothing there.

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/nationalism-without-regrets.html

You probably already know, but the above author is a constitutional and legal expert. Pro-independence obviously. But usually quite level headed and on the ball when it comes to the legal arguments that surround anything Scotland based in Westminster.

I guess this is just an taster of what's to come. Mabye we'll all get distracted by the EU referendum instead for a bit.

elantan

Met a fair few angry no voters today, saying they had been duped, it was incredibly hard not to lecture them

Also met a couple of staunch unionists that think HR should be dissolved, the happiest people appeared to the yes camp sitting with that we told u so smug look on their faces

It's very interesting how many people tune in often to WM now, HR has been popular for a while, I do wonder if politics is the number favourite thing for many Scots to do

elantan

kabayiri wrote: »

Fascinating.

Back in 2010, in the first few days of his term, my MP brokered the historic deal between the LibDems and the Tories, leading to 5 years of stable coallition government in difficult times.

I'm sure the small stuff needs looking after too though eh?

You do realise that this

Memory_Girl wrote: »

LOL ... today apart from being in the Chamber taking an active part in the debate ..... strategy meetings on EU Referendum .three media commitments ... two evening APPG meetings and showing a lovely old lady from our constituency around Westminster, our MP has generated 72 response letters, made 17 appointments for meetings, scheduled 22 surgeries in his constituency, organised a gift to a young lass hurt in an accident last week, Skyped with a lad with cancer .. got HMRC to stump up over £7K in overdue Tax Credits for five families, stopped one from being unfairly evicted, written letters in defence of an immigration case ...... and has just made it home to his one year old baby to do bathtime.

................. tomorrow - more of the same I should think!

But don't worry about #Team56 at Westminster ... we won't be there long

MG


PS (waves at elantan) - howzit gaun therr china??

Was in direct answer to this ?

kabayiri wrote: »

Do the SNP have shares in referendum companies or something?

Is there any chance of them getting down to any serious work between referendums / lobbying WM / moaning to the media ?

browniej

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Symbolically broken if you prefer. That's what it looks like.

Yet it isn't as the clause is still there in the Scotland Bill and does exactly what was promised. No need for any other clause that weakens the first one.

I would suggest that it's the other three parties that didn't have any idea what they were saying or offering to Scots voters.. rather than your own suggestion that it's SNP MP's that don't have a clue what was being offered !

Now there's a surprise that you don't agree.