English Scots for YES

Is that the great record 'Two Hoots Mon!' *Jalima? There's a moose, loose, aboot this hoose etc.

It's hootenanny (or granny)

To me, the hatred seems to come from the Tory party, not from the SNP. I don't see anger from Nicola Sturgeon, either, she seems calm and sensible.
I guess there's no accounting for people's differing viewpoints.

I am constantly embarrassed by the snp Mp's behaviour at Westminster.Wee Nicky's refusal to understand democracy is shameful. I really hope the petition to stop the 2ND referendum works.

I don't watch the parliament broadcasts much, grannypiper. What do you find embarrassing in the MPs' behaviour?

FarNorth what hatred coming from the Tory Party? Against the SNP? Against Sturgeon?Against the Scots? Cameron ( Tory!) did all he could to keep Scotland as part of the Union.T May will no doubt do all she can to keep the Union intact, but against Sturgeon and the SNP, doing all they can to stir up dissent by wanting a referendum on independence again and so soon after the last one, and doing all she can for a good Brexit, would it be any wonder if she was irritated ( at the least) by the SNP.The timing is pure 'playing at politics' games, as has been said.

Quite right, Roses. You rarely hear nastiness against the Scots coming from Parliament. I was shocked yesterday to hear one Scottish Nat. jeer at Mrs May's shrieking tone. How crass to make such a sexist comment as the word implies criticism of the female voice. Poor form.

I think what was said, scottie, was a "screeching U-turn", as in screeching brakes/tyres.

I guess "hatred" is a bit stronger than I meant. It's more like patronising disregard.

Farnorth.

Ah, that is acceptable. I heard it wrong. But,please Scotland, don't go. Your contribution to the British way of life is needed in these troubled times.

What contribution? Every attempt at contribution seems to meet a brick wall.

FarNorth you must have missed the posts (including mine) on another thread about the number of Scottish Prime Ministers, Chancellors, Secretaries of State etc, not to mention MPs that have made such a valuable contribution to the politics of the UK over so many years. Just because there seems to be a dearth of them at the moment and because some SNP MPs seem to have treated the traditions of Westminster with some disrespect does not mean that there will not be Scottish MPs who may make a valuable contribution in the future to the UK should we remain united.
As far as I can see, the SNP MPs seem to have one aim which perhaps lessens what they have to offer to Parliament. And the youngest new SNP MP is finding it 'all a bit much' and wants to give up.

What has happened to the Scottish MPs of vision and stature that we remember?

Jalima Because of the EVEL legislation no MP representing a Scottish (or Welsh) constituency can ever again be the PM of the UK as these MPs have to leave the chamber and cannot vote when England only matters are debated. Under the current arrangements, with no devolved parliament/assembly for England, the PM of the UK is by default the equivalent of the 'First Minister of England and I cannot envisage anyone being happy with that role being filled by a Scottish (or Welsh) based MP, especially as they could not participate, vote or speak in relevant debates.

Perhaps we don't need any MSPs. After all their work used to be done by Scots MPs. I would prefer to elect MPs by PR, as is done in Holyrood at present, but not necessarily using the same system.

Scots MPs could meet in Edinburgh on two days a week to deal with devolved matters. At the same time Welsh and NI members could deal with their devolved matters in Cardiff and Belfast and English MPs could stay in the HoC to deal with English matters.

For the remaining three days the HoC would deal with UK matters and there would be no reason the PM could not come from any UK constituency.

Of course this sort of change, or any other constitutional change ought to be carefully considered and supported by a substantial majority and is very unlikely to happen when there are so many vested interests and parliamentarians are distracted by the chaos of brexit.

Thanks for the explanation Granny23

I suppose that is fair enough especially since Scotland and Wales will have even more devolved powers in the future.
However, there must be many matters which pertain to the whole UK so the PM is PM of the UK, not just England.

Does that mean Ruth Davidson could never be PM?
Ruth Davidson has refused to rule out becoming an MP or even the Conservative party's UK leader.

Not sure how the SMP's were allowed to vote against extending Sunday Trading in England and Wales then Granny23? (easily)

so they did gillybob, I forgot that!

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/12095904/Scottish-MPs-react-with-fury-as-only-English-and-Welsh-MPs-are-allowed-to-vote-on-housing-bill.html
Cake and eat it comes to mind

I've no idea either Gillybob and Jamila The opening hours of shops in England seem to be clearly a matter for 'England only' consideration whereas decisions re Housing subsidies or grants do have a relevance to Scotland in terms of the Barnett consequentials.

Varian's suggestion is worthy of discussion but note that if it were enacted immediately, Scotland would be governed by 56 SNP MPs with only 1 each of the Liberals, Labour and Tories. Before devolution, Scotland was governed entirely from Westminster via the Scottish Office, with a large staff of civil servants and an appointee from the ruling party at Westminster as Secretary of State for Scotland. The present incumbent, David Mundell (nicknamed fluffy) was appointed because he is the only Tory who represents a Scottish Constituency - more Westminster's man in Scotland than Scotland's man in Westminster.

Also worth noting that it has been SNP policy going back years, even before devolution, to absent themselves from England/England+Wales Only debates and voters, unless there was likely to be a knock on effect for Scotland. Because of sometimes wafer thin majorities, Labour, Tory and Liberal MPs from Scotland were often required by their Party Whips to vote on these issues.

Logic suggests that the UK cannot afford to carry on with these 'make them up as you go along' 'sticking plaster solutions' to meet a current anomaly or difficulty as they always create further consequences further down the line. If the UK is to continue as a single entity there needs to be a root and branch change (such as the creation of a federal state or Devo Max (as promised to the Scots if they voted No in the last referendum).

Unfortunately no Government comfortably ensconced in power under the present set-up is going to propose drastic changes. Nor is any opposition party which has high hopes of gaining that power for themselves or as part of coalition at the next election.

When I made my suggestion for a different way of doing things, Granny 23, I did say we would have to have PR so we would certainly not have 56 SNP MPs.

I think you know that the SNP is ludicrously over-represented in the HoC by the vagiaries of first-past-the post which awarded the SNP seven times as many MPs as the Liberal Democrats, who got twice as many UK votes.

Yes Varian, I only added that point to illustrate the unexpected consequences which ill considered ad-hoc changes to the system can cause. Even the part 'first past the post', part PR system designed by Labour's Donald Dewar, to ensure that the make up of the Scottish Parliament would closely reflect the voters intentions and specifically to prevent any one party from having outright control, failed to prevent the SNP from achieving precisely that overall majority in 2012? or was it 2011?

I am agreeing with you here. 100% in favour of a system of PR where people's votes count, rather than the current set-up where someone can vote for the party of their choice for a lifetime, whilst never seeing their candidate elected because the constituency where they live always elects someone from another party. I am only saying that devising such a system is difficult
- and getting cross party agreement to implement it nigh impossible. That would require an upper house full of independent thinkers instead of the one we have now, stuffed with party hacks and failed politicians.

Well said Granny23. I think we will always have a different opinion about Scotland's place in the UK but at least we agree about the need for a fair voting system.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/168657

Enough votes now for a discussion on PR in parliament. You can still add your signature, though, if you haven't.

Here is another link from a neutral non Scottish Source if anyone can be bothered to read it: It is quite safe - there are NO SHOUTY BITS IN IT