General Election 2015

[zero000]

We haven't voted for independence,, I don't think a one size fits all approach is best, so devolving some responsibility to those best placed to understand the issues involves seems like a sensible option.

The thought of Wales being independent terrifies me. We're lucky that we don't have the Scottish delusions of grandeur

[pink_triangle]

We haven't voted for independence,, I don't think a one size fits all approach is best, so devolving some responsibility to those best placed to understand the issues involves seems like a sensible option.

I wouldn't disagree. My point is however as a Welsh politician who wants to go to Westminster, you should be willing to debate non Welsh matters. If you want to purely focus on Wales, the senedd may be a better fit.

[feral chile]

I wouldn't disagree. My point is however as a Welsh politician who wants to go to Westminster, you should be willing to debate non Welsh matters. If you want to purely focus on Wales, the senedd may be a better fit.

wouldn't that be less democratic for England? Devolved countries having a say in how they're governed, when English Mp's can't vote on it, and then devolved countries' Mps having a say in non devolved countries' affairs?

or do you mean debate and not vote?

Edited May 17, 2015 by feral chile

[pink_triangle]

wouldn't that be less democratic for England? Devolved countries having a say in how they're governed, when English Mp's can't vote on it, and then devolved countries' Mps having a say in non devolved countries' affairs?

or do you mean debate and not vote?

No I mean debate and vote. It's a British parliament and every mp is on the same pay scale, voted in the same way and should be treated as equals.

Of course if the English consider that unfair, I have no problem with an english parliament being set up.

[viberunner]

Out of interest do the snp mps hand back some of their British tax payer funded salary if they don't want to play a full role in British parliament. Do the party hand back some of the money they get allocated for having mps in Westminster?

You do realise they had different people stand for Westminster than Holyrood, right?

You do know that Nicola Sturgeon, Leader of the SNPs, MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament) and First Minister of the Scottish Parliament hasn't been elected to Westminster on the grounds she didn't stand for election to Westminster?

I'm not aware of any SNP member, ever, having done both jobs or attempted to.

[viberunner]

There is no post that Neil cannot use to slip in his demented hatred of the SNP!

Delve a little deeper.

Like the men who "hate rap music" and "don't like reggae" either and think James Brown was "overrated"... we know what you're really trying to say.

[pink_triangle]

You do realise they had different people stand for Westminster than Holyrood, right?

You do know that Nicola Sturgeon, Leader of the SNPs, MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament) and First Minister of the Scottish Parliament hasn't been elected to Westminster on the grounds she didn't stand for election to Westminster?

I'm not aware of any SNP member, ever, having done both jobs or attempted to.

I know all that, thats my point! If your a Scottish politician and want to legislate purely on Scotland, then holyrood is the place to go. Westminster is a British parliament, with British mps and I think all mps should be willing to vote on any issue that passes through.

In the same way, I don't want to see English mps in minister vote for purely English issues, because that's not what Westminster is for.

[LJS]

I know all that, thats my point! If your a Scottish politician and want to legislate purely on Scotland, then holyrood is the place to go. Westminster is a British parliament, with British mps and I think all mps should be willing to vote on any issue that passes through.

In the same way, I don't want to see English mps in minister vote for purely English issues, because that's not what Westminster is for.

I think you can argue this either way. The SNP's position is perfectly logical as is the position you advocate. I don't see any reason why they should take less pay just because they don't vote on English matters. I'm sure there are hard working mp's whose voting record isn't great & vice versa.

For the record, I think Alex Salmond is now both an MP & an msp (& he was once in the past too). I believe he will donate one salary to charity. There was an attempt to outlaw this. I'm not sure what became of it.

Edited May 17, 2015 by LJS

[viberunner]

I know all that, thats my point! If your a Scottish politician and want to legislate purely on Scotland, then holyrood is the place to go. Westminster is a British parliament, with British mps and I think all mps should be willing to vote on any issue that passes through.

In the same way, I don't want to see English mps in minister vote for purely English issues, because that's not what Westminster is for.

The point is the Westminster parliament legislates on issues that are UK wide and it legislates on topics that are English and English alone, but it is not allowed to legislate on - even talk about - issues that are devolved (the speaker steps-in and stops them).

People talk about "two classes of MP" but in that sense there are already two classes of legislation.

[gary1979666]

We may disagree with the snp mob on here but the genuine hatred is reserved for you and yours alone.

I bet you can barely repress your erection over the thought that the hunt will be resumed.

I'll be calling some of my old alf friends soon enough.

Hey Russy, you ole troll, you!

I'm against fox hunting, for the record. But I support the idea behind EVEL. If the Scots handle something in holyrood, then they should not vote in Westminster, even if its something that could out vote a bill I dislike. As more and more gets devolved, then the more this needs to happen.

Now I support the Tories, but doesn't mean I agree with everything they do. But I have more akin to them the the alternatives.

[feral chile]

Ha I fell for this at first

http://beezlystreet.com/2015/05/11/charlotte-church-threatens-to-beat-prime-minister-to-death-with-katie-hopkinss-arm/

Charlotte has been a little more dignified:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/news-opinion/charlotte-different-league-intelligence-talent-9274079

Edited May 17, 2015 by feral chile

[viberunner]

I'm against fox hunting, for the record. But I support the idea behind EVEL. If the Scots handle something in holyrood, then they should not vote in Westminster, even if its something that could out vote a bill I dislike. As more and more gets devolved, then the more this needs to happen.

And incredible amount is already devolved, more than most people realise.

[feral chile]

And incredible amount is already devolved, more than most people realise.

Quite, even in Wales:

http://gov.wales/newsroom/firstminister/2011/110509lawmaking/?lang=en

This is why I'm confused that people want MP's of devolved countries to make decisions over England, when the reverse can't happen in many areas of legislation.

Edited May 17, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/11-reasons-left-sore-losers-5689095

[pink_triangle]

The point is the Westminster parliament legislates on issues that are UK wide and it legislates on topics that are English and English alone, but it is not allowed to legislate on - even talk about - issues that are devolved (the speaker steps-in and stops them).

People talk about "two classes of MP" but in that sense there are already two classes of legislation.

Unfortunately not two classes of MPs. From what I understand it will be 3, as there will be some Welsh and English legislation. Its fair enough that British mps are not allowed to discuss things devolved to Scotland. The British parliament legislated for and the Scottish people voted for devolution to Scotland. If the English want to go through the same process, that's completely fine in my view.

[pink_triangle]

Quite, even in Wales:

http://gov.wales/newsroom/firstminister/2011/110509lawmaking/?lang=en

This is why I'm confused that people want MP's of devolved countries to make decisions over England, when the reverse can't happen in many areas of legislation.

The thing is I don't see MPs as English or Scottish, anymore than I see them northern or southern. When people are elected to the British parliament they are British MPs who should be able to vote on any matter that comes through the parliament. Iff English people aren't happy with others influencing their legislation, then Im happy for them to go through the same process as the Scottish and Welsh, setting up their own parliament. I was about to say let the English decide, then I realized as a Welshman living in England I probably get a say. I would probably put myself in the undecided category when it came to English parliament.

Reducing the voting rights of certain MPs is in my view a huge constutional change. This is being mentioned purely because one party feels it is in their electoral advantage and such changes should never be made on this basis

Edited May 17, 2015 by pink_triangle

[eFestivals]

OK, Firstly Neil, I seem to remember some chat about whether SNP mp's should or shouldn't vote on English NHS matters. I got the impression you though they shouldn't. If I misinterpreted that, then I apologise. So just for clarity, do you think it is acceptable for Scottish mp's to vote on issues that do not affect Scotland e.g hunting ban?

I made exceedingly clear that I didn't support EVEL in those convos, and that I was only pointing out the flaws in the SNP's anti-EVEL argument.

(there's much better arguments to be made, but the SNP concentrated on a fake idea of something being stolen from Scotland. I wonder why..? )

Secondly, does Neil or anyone else think there is anything wrong with the long held position of the SNP that they don't vote on matters that have no impact on Scotland?

It's the UK Parilament.

There's a clue there, especially when a party to that Parliament stands for election saying they'll play a full and constructive part.

Finally, I have seen the Blessed Nicola's tweet & also one form Angus Robertson saying they haven't made their mind up on the hunting issue. I guess it's politically quite a tough decision as if they abstain people like Russy will paint them as being pro-hunting whilst if they vote, the other side will paint them as undemocratic.

For me they have a simple choice, they stick with their long held principle & abstain or they change their policy & use their right to vote on all Westminster legislation.

Might this be all about your claims of them being a principled party proving to be wrong?

It's very clear they're trying to find out what their principles should be, and they're waiting for the public to tell them what their principles should be.

It's also looking like they're not that bothered about "locking the tories out" or even trying to.

It's self-interest riding high, just as soon as they can work out what will deliver them the best me-me-me result.

[eFestivals]

You do realise they had different people stand for Westminster than Holyrood, right?

You do know that Nicola Sturgeon, Leader of the SNPs, MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament) and First Minister of the Scottish Parliament hasn't been elected to Westminster on the grounds she didn't stand for election to Westminster?

I'm not aware of any SNP member, ever, having done both jobs or attempted to.

Blimey, snippers have very short memories.

No wonder they have policies suitable for goldfish, who can't even remember that just 9 months ago they played a very different tune.

[eFestivals]

And incredible amount is already devolved, more than most people realise.

And that's before the Smith Commision stuff - which apparently isn't anywhere near enough for the SNP, who want to impose austerity-Max.

[LJS]

Might this be all about your claims of them being a principled party proving to be wrong?

It's very clear they're trying to find out what their principles should be, and they're waiting for the public to tell them what their principles should be.

It's also looking like they're not that bothered about "locking the tories out" or even trying to.

It's self-interest riding high, just as soon as they can work out what will deliver them the best me-me-me result.

I have never claimed they are a principled party. What I said was their main policy position was based on a principle which they couldn't really change unlike the other parties who (whatever their position in the past may have been) are clearly based on the principle of power at all costs.

I went on to clearly say that I didn't claim that individually the SNP were any more principled than any other politicians, but as usual, when something doesn't suit your argument you just ignore it.

So just in case that wasn't clear enough, let me spell it out again. I make no claim whatsoever for SNP MP's & MSP's being necessarily more or less principled than Labour MP's & MSP's. Some will be more principled than others & we can certainly have our own opinions but Scottish exceptionalism exists solely in your imagination.

As for locking the Tories out. That chance has gone.

[eFestivals]

I have never claimed they are a principled party. What I said was their main policy position was based on a principle which they couldn't really change unlike the other parties

and yet Nicola's tweet gets to show that's no principle.

As for locking the Tories out. That chance has gone.

Not at all.

Each vote is a vote, where the numbers for and against are totted up.

Are you suggesting that the SNP are just going to be the tories willing puppets because the tories are in power?

Like every other MP, those SNP MPs were elected to represent their constituents in the govt of the country.

If the SNP choose to absain, then it either means they think their constituents don't care about foxes being killed in this country, or they aren't representing their constituents.

Taking the view that "it's not my part of the country it's happening in so I don't care about it" is a recipe for disaster no matter where boundary lines might get drawn.

[russycarps]

I have never claimed they are a principled party. What I said was their main policy position was based on a principle which they couldn't really change unlike the other parties who (whatever their position in the past may have been) are clearly based on the principle of power at all costs.

I went on to clearly say that I didn't claim that individually the SNP were any more principled than any other politicians, but as usual, when something doesn't suit your argument you just ignore it.

So just in case that wasn't clear enough, let me spell it out again. I make no claim whatsoever for SNP MP's & MSP's being necessarily more or less principled than Labour MP's & MSP's. Some will be more principled than others & we can certainly have our own opinions but Scottish exceptionalism exists solely in your imagination.

As for locking the Tories out. That chance has gone.

Yet her own words make clear that position has changed now

So why is she dithering over the fox hunting issue? It's because she's trying to work out how the snp can use this issue to maximise their political gain.

The best case scenario for the snp is for them to vote against the repeal, but still lose the vote. Then she can claim she courageously stood up to the tories and still lost. Thus highlighting a further division between england and scotland.

However, if the snp vote is enough to defeat the repeal, this is of no use to her at all, as the fox hunting division between england and scotland will no longer exist. So in this instance it's better for them to abstain and the repeal to go ahead. Then she can point out how the nasty english hunt foxes while the scots do not.

The fact her decision means the difference between foxes living and dying means absolutely nothing to her in her quest for power.

Edited May 19, 2015 by russycarps

[LJS]

Yet her own words make clear that position has changed now

So why is she dithering over the fox hunting issue? It's because she's trying to work out how the snp can use this issue to maximise their political gain.

The best case scenario for the snp is for them to vote against the repeal, but still lose the vote. Then she can claim she courageously stood up to the tories and still lost. Thus highlighting a further division between england and scotland.

However, if the snp vote is enough to defeat the repeal, this is of no use to her at all, as the fox hunting division between england and scotland will no longer exist. So in this instance it's better for them to abstain and the repeal to go ahead. Then she can point out how the nasty english hunt foxes while the scots do not.

The fact her decision means the difference between foxes living and dying means absolutely nothing to her in her quest for power.

I see you have developed Neil's mind-reading powers.

Congratulations.

[eFestivals]

I see you have developed Neil's mind-reading powers.

Congratulations.

So please do give us the low-down of why the SNP can't make up their mind....?

I reckon Russy has nailed it.

The duplicitousness shines thru at all moments, unless you've swallowed the myth manual.

[russycarps]

I see you have developed Neil's mind-reading powers.

Congratulations.

what's she dithering about then, trying to decide if she thinks fluffy foxes are cute or not?