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

.string.

Re the use of Standing Orders to change the voting entitlement in the House of Commons:

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The Tories are sneaking it through, in such a way as to avoid much in the way of debate with the Labour party/Lib Dems/SNP and the House of Lords Gen. That's what Standing Orders are. That's it, and good luck to them with it. It all looks a bit shady, but that's nothing new with the Conservatives I suppose. But they seem reluctant to go through normal channels with EVEL for some reason. So I suppose they must have one (a reason ).

It's not something the SNP object to in principle, nor do I. But, best not to have the decks 'stacked' too much in one party's favour over it. It'll be extremely difficult to go back once it's in place. And will create 'tier's of MP's that didn't exist until now. So there really is a need to get it right in terms of the other three nation's MP's being able to vote on reserved matters. It's the defining of what an truly English law is that's the issue here for the other parties and MP's.

I should remark first that I favour the new voting procedures being formalised by having it go through the House of Lords. Whether they would give it a hard time or no and send it back would remain to be seen bearing in mind it was in the Tory manifesto and they thus have a mandate.

But I find it a rather delicious irony that the new voting arrangement is proposed to be dealt with in the same way that issues are decided in the Scottish Parliament where there is no ombudsman effect of a second chamber, and the issue is dealt with as a result of a majority of votes in the Parliament following a debate. Also noting that the SNP are against the very existence of the House of Lords shows the SNP line of argument to be very hypocritical indeed.

So I can't help chuckling over that even though I have my disagreements. The Standing Order approach would at least have the advantage of the Government (any subsequent Government as well) being able to fine tune the matter without undue delay.

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.

How to choose the issues which are England only - well that would be whether they are applicable in England only of course.

So that would mean, in principle, any issue which was not "Reserved".

The SNP argument is about knock-on effects in other parts of the UK. Well that is a secondary effect but is inevitably true also for some Scottish Legislation so unless there is a reciprocal agreement on such issues then I don't see that argument gaining much traction. The idea behind maintaining the voting rights (see below) is one way to prevent serious problems.

For some time I've been an advocate of all MPs having debating and voting rights on all matters in Parliament but with the ultimate decision being done on a count of English Constituency votes for English only matters. In fact I went further, advocating a means by which if a majority of non-English votes were against a Bill then it should be sent back once for re-consideration, debate and re voting. The current Tory preference, AFAIK, does allow the first part of that but not the second. I can understand why the second part could be a problem, opening many issues to spoiling filibustering and indeed that is still a concern; but that can be solved with time limits etc..

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

If the effect is so small, why waste Parliamentary time debating it?

Or is it that the data set has been cherry-picked to include one of the few periods of time that Labour has won a majority without Scottish MPs.

I suspect if you took the period 1964-2014 you'd get a very, very different result.

Well feel free, there are other papers on the matter if you want to read them. But I suspect not. At the end of the day English MP's outnumber Scottish/Welsh/NI ones. It's a simple arithmetical fact. English MP's can outvote the other nations MP's on anything they like. And decisively so.

EVEL is a waste of time. However, it will go someway towards further lessening the relevancy of Westminster for Scottish/Welsh/NI MP's and unpicking yet another strand of the Union. Lessening Westminster relevancy at the same time as giving further powers to Holyrood ? Am sure the SNP will be deeply upset about that...

The point about debating such a matter wasn't actually about EVEL per se. It was about "making such a major constitutional change - that would breach the principle all MPs are equal " ...through a standing order ? I daresay Labour/Lib Dems and the House of Lords might want to say something about that. It a kind of important principle wouldn't you say ?

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

I'm perhaps confused here.

Why should Tory voters worry about the mechanics by which the Conservative party get their manifesto commitments implemented?

I wouldn't be worried.

All this talk of "engagement"....pah, it's like new kids in big school, all excited about new surroundings. Let's see what this is like after 4 years of term.

It's an extremely good start. And if they keep it up, will win over a lot of people. Lets put it this way, by putting themselves on the line via social media, a few years of their voters seeing empty SNP benches would not be a good thing for them. So they'll continue as they are. They're getting a lot of extremely positive feedback both online and within the HOC.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, Conservative MP for North East Somerset and a martinet on parliamentary procedure, who followed O’Hara: “I really want to congratulate the honourable member for Argyll and Bute for his superb maiden speech. It was the ideal maiden speech; it contained everything that a good maiden speech should have.
"It was very serious-minded, enormously respectful of the House of Commons, generous to his predecessor, against whom I imagine he had fought quite a good campaign to have won so successfully. But it also had that little bit of steel that good maiden speeches need, so that we know that he in this House means business."

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/analysis/1321843-analysis-argyll-and-bute-snp-mp-brendan-ohara-gives-maiden-speech/

Speaker John Bercow has praised SNP MPs for their "solidarity" - a day after rebuking them for clapping.

The Speaker said: "I know I'll be joined by a great many colleagues in admiring the spirit of solidarity which motivates large numbers of members of one party to turn up at the same time.
"I say that in a spirit of genuine respect and so thank you for what you have said."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32921315

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Re the use of Standing Orders to change the voting entitlement in the House of Commons:

I should remark first that I favour the new voting procedures being formalised by having it go through the House of Lords. Whether they would give it a hard time or no and send it back would remain to be seen bearing in mind it was in the Tory manifesto and they thus have a mandate.

But I find it a rather delicious irony that the new voting arrangement is proposed to be dealt with in the same way that issues are decided in the Scottish Parliament where there is no ombudsman effect of a second chamber, and the issue is dealt with as a result of a majority of votes in the Parliament following a debate. Also noting that the SNP are against the very existence of the House of Lords shows the SNP line of argument to be very hypocritical indeed.

So I can't help chuckling over that even though I have my disagreements. The Standing Order approach would at least have the advantage of the Government (any subsequent Government as well) being able to fine tune the matter without undue delay.

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.

How to choose the issues which are England only - well that would be whether they are applicable in England only of course.

So that would mean, in principle, any issue which was not "Reserved".

The SNP argument is about knock-on effects in other parts of the UK. Well that is a secondary effect but is inevitably true also for some Scottish Legislation so unless there is a reciprocal agreement on such issues then I don't see that argument gaining much traction. The idea behind maintaining the voting rights (see below) is one way to prevent serious problems.

For some time I've been an advocate of all MPs having debating and voting rights on all matters in Parliament but with the ultimate decision being done on a count of English Constituency votes for English only matters. In fact I went further, advocating a means by which if a majority of non-English votes were against a Bill then it should be sent back once for re-consideration, debate and re voting. The current Tory preference, AFAIK, does allow the first part of that but not the second. I can understand why the second part could be a problem, opening many issues to spoiling filibustering and indeed that is still a concern; but that can be solved with time limits etc..

I was going to reply to this. But realised it would probably have covered the same ground as my reply to Generali.

The only part I would take issue with is that the 'knock on effects' in other parts of the UK are 'secondary'. That's coming across as a bit 'superior' to be honest. I don't regard changes to Scotland's budget ( as a result of changes to English laws )..which affect my children's/grand child's health or education, and the budget the Scottish government have to put into these things as 'secondary' I'm afraid. Neither will many in devolved areas.

Unless you're really saying that you actually think that nothing will happen to Scottish budgets if UK one's are changed ? And that Scottish MP's being unable to vote on things which do affect/have knock on effects' on that budget are 'secondary' to EVEL ?

The Scottish budget depends entirely on the UK one. It's allocated a part of it. Thus your garbling on about English MP's voting on Scottish matters is tosh. They've already voted on it at UK levels. And it's Scottish MSP's not Scottish MP's that deal with devolved matters. Scottish MP's can't vote on it either.

Stop confusing MP's with MSP's and you might finally get somewhere with your point.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I was going to reply to this. But realised it would probably have covered the same ground as my reply to Generali.

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

Shakethedisease

.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.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's an extremely good start. And if they keep it up, will win over a lot of people. Lets put it this way, by putting themselves on the line via social media, a few years of their voters seeing empty SNP benches would not be a good thing for them. So they'll continue as they are. They're getting a lot of extremely positive feedback both online and within the HOC.
...

Most average voters don't watch broadcasts from parliament.

I'm not saying there won't be good MPs amongst the group; I just think we need to give it time. Judge MPs over their whole term in office.

It's the same with Smith commission and the whole EVEL thing. I think we need to give it time for them to implement the proposals.

Some of the conversation here seems to be judging things which have not happened yet.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

22 out of 3,600 votes in 13 years. Wow, who knew this law was sooooo badly needed to keep Scots/Welsh and NI MP's from voting. Bet that 0.6% of all votes is keeping the English, and English MP's awake at night eh.. But one does really have to ask... Why ? :think: What a complete waste of time and effort.

Of course one of the votes was for the introduction of student loans in England.

Do you think it just and fair, that the vote was only passed due to the vote of the Scottish MPs, whose own constituents were unaffected?

Do you feel strongly about student loans or is it an insignificant matter?

Would you be happy if the English MPs imposed student loans on Scotland ?

It is a wrong that needs correcting: the fact that 22 out of 3,600 votes is irrelevant.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Most average voters don't watch broadcasts from parliament.

No, but there's an awful lot of average voters on Twitter and Facebook. All seeing the updates, pictures and Youtube links. It's that sort of engagement imo that is needed within politics. Most especially with younger voters who don't read newspapers or watch politics programs.

I'm not saying there won't be good MPs amongst the group; I just think we need to give it time. Judge MPs over their whole term in office.

It's the same with Smith commission and the whole EVEL thing. I think we need to give it time for them to implement the proposals.

Some of the conversation here seems to be judging things which have not happened yet.

Yes, but you were doing the same yourself with your own post re 'new kids and big school'. We'll see.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

Of course one of the votes was for the introduction of student loans in England.

Do you think it just and fair, that the vote was only passed due to the vote of the Scottish MPs, whose own constituents were unaffected?

Do you feel strongly about student loans or is it an insignificant matter?

Would you be happy if the English MPs imposed student loans on Scotland ?

It is a wrong that needs correcting: the fact that 22 out of 3,600 votes is irrelevant.

So correct it. Like I said it's not EVEL itself that anyone has an issue with. But tuition fees since 1998.. have been a Labour, Tory and Lib Dem issue and creation. The buck stops with them. Nothing really to do with the SNP.

I agree with you that no Scottish MP should've voted in 2004 re tuition fees. But in the event they all did apart from one ( The Tory MP ). Labour for, SNP and Lib Dem's against.

What is relevant, is what a truly English-only Law is defined as in the future. Those are likely to be equally rare. But I think you keep misunderstanding the fact that EVEL itself is something I'm all for ! As long as it doesn't directly or indirectly affect any Scottish based finances in passing them.