is this acceptable from YOUR elected MP's?

Mcem with today being the 1st anniversary of Grenfell and the start of the Football world cup it is indeed a good day to bury awkward news. This 'significant constitutional event' should be of concern to every thinking person in the UK - of equal concern to those who want to preserve the Union and those who want to dissolve it. We now have recorded evidence that any pretence at a 'Union of Equals' is exactly that - mere pretence.

trisher and grandad your posts have reassured me.
While absolutely behind granny23 's rational and considered post, I am pleased that 2 non-Scots have got to the nitty-gritty and seen this as a serious attack on basic principles of democracy.
Of UK democracy!
Bercow clearly trampled over procedural rules and his disgusting sniggering was a disgrace.
This is an issue which should concern all of us ( and that's without even discussing the implications of the 'power grab').
After the initial showing of yesterday 's parliamentary events, Bercow's contemptuous sniggering was edited out for later bulletins.
I have just watched bbc 1 o'clock news and this significant constitutional event didn't merit a mention.

Well said Grandad

NFK My understanding is that the Westminster Parliament has the power now to privatise, sell off or franchise parts of NHS England and Wales to anyone. What they do not have is the power to do the same with the Scottish NHS as this power is devolved to the Scottish Parliament who have chosen not to privatise any part of their Health Service, although they do, on occasion, 'buy in' services from privately owned health facilities to plug gaps in the NHS. This is one of the most worrying things about the retention of devolved powers at Westminster, as it would allow Westminster to force legislation in such areas on Scotland. Legislation which is completely against the expressed will of the Scottish Parliament.

I was working yesterday, but did watch the "goings on" in the House of Commons on returning home and was appalled at the behaviour of many members of Parliament during Prime Minister's question time. The shouting and gesticulation being carried out with no regard for the procedures from all the benches was nothing short of disgusting.

The prime Minister's question time is normally "raucous" to say the least and deserves little respect on any Wednesday. However, I believe that yesterday (13th June) the behaviour in the house sunk to new depths. Do we really expect our young people to have any true regard for democracy when they witness that behaviour from those who purport to be the leaders of our country.

By example to the above, David Dimbleby speaking later in the evening in regard to his programme on Russia, advised that it was the young people of that country who supported the Putin regime and in large numbers. Surely, it could well be that those young people have seen our so-called democratic leaders in action in the House of Commons and have thought to themselves "we wish to have no part of that in our country".

Many of those in the House of Commons are career politicians who have never held down any employment outside of parliament. Therefore, they do not realise that should they act in such a manner towards colleagues in any other workplace environment, they would be immediately disciplined for harassment and bullying and possibly face dismissal or possibly an industrial tribunal in that regard.

United Kingdom is at this point in time facing one of the biggest decisions to be made since the Second World War in regards to Brexit. Surely we as the electorate deserve that those we send to Parliament act with respect to others in that place and toward us who sent them there as our representatives.

They are there to listen to the arguments in debate with due regards for the opinions of all others. In that, they must stop behaving in the manner of an "undisciplined hoard" if long term democracy is to be preserved in this country.

I am sure there are many like myself who are totally disgusted by the events of yesterday in Parliament and feel that change must come about for the essential good governance of this country.

Granny23 you say that the Government will be able to agree to American companies buying into the NHS etc. Is this a definite will? Or just a possible, a maybe to be debated?

Gilly I did indeed, but on reflection and further research I now see it differently.

You didn’t seem to think it was “a storm in a tea cup” or “a red herring” yesterday on the England No way thread, though granny23 unless I am mistaken you seemed to take it quite seriously.

Happy to be corrected.

It seems to me to be a basic requirement of democracy that MPs should be allowed to speak about something so important. If power can be withdrawn from a group of MPs in such a manner what is to stop any future government using this as a precedent to withdraw devolved powers when it conflicts with their policies.
And am I alone in finding it strange (or perhaps not so strange) that legislation about abortion in N Ireland is considered their business but Scotland and Brexit is non of Scotland's business?

The 'suicide' furore is indeed a storm in a teacup, a red herring.
Yes, it is

Granny23 thank you for a post which is factual, informative and sensible without the hysteria evident in some quarters, including the H of C.

Thanks Trisher you are one of the few who 'get it'

Great post Granny23

The 'suicide' furore is indeed a storm in a teacup, a red herring. The MSM has latched on to it in preference to addressing the real issue, which is that the Scottish Parliament, (with support from Labour, Liberal, Green and SNP MSPs) democratically, after much debate, voted NOT to agree to the passing of the Brexit Bill. This was principally because the SP could not agree to returning powers from the EU, being held by Westminster for up to 7 years, during which time Westminster would have full powers over normally devolved matters, such as farming, fracking, fisheries, NHS Scotland and many more.

During these 7 years, the UK government will , post Brexit, be entering into trade deals with non EU Countries, the biggest of whom being the USA. With the UK Gov, holding all the powers they will be able to agree to deals such as allowing American Companies to buy into the NHS (Currently NO privatisation in Scotland) introduce GM crops (currently banned in Scotland), allow Nuclear Dumping (currently not permitted in Scotland) and sanction Fracking by the big oil companies, which after much debate, petitions and protests is currently not permitted in Scotland.

This is the 'power grab' which is referred to by the SP. It is to this section of the Brexit Bill (re the holding of 'should be devolved' powers at Westminster that the SG refused to give its consent. This is the section that was 'debated' at Westminster on Tuesday, when the Minister, talked for the whole of the allotted time, with the speaker allowing no interventions, refusing to take the Labour amendment, which called for the transition period to be limited to 5 rather than 7 years. Thus no MP representing a Scottish Constituency was heard at all.

This now means that many previously devolved powers will be wielded by Westminster for up to 7 years (or more if they decide to extend it] with the SP unable to overrule any decisions or protect the existing Scottish Laws designed to protect our Country. As we have seen, even if all Scottish MPs at Westminster try to object, they can easily be out voted, shouted down, ejected, talked out.

The hard won devolution Settlement is now in tatters and all the benefits (environmental, educational, health wise,) that the SP has provided are under threat. It will in effect signal a form of Direct Rule and leave the Scottish Parliament as impotent as Scotland's MPs in the HoC.

Suicide? it has crossed my mind since Tuesday, but even self immolation on the floor of the Commons would be deemed a 'stunt' and a source of much hilarity from the, so called, Impartial speaker.

Not having enough time has always been used as an excuse to lose controversial legislation, including Bills that would have given women the vote much earlier.
If you are voted in on the basis of devolved power are you entitled to hand over that power when you are asked (or forced) to do so? Or is it your duty to protest as much as you are able? I would think the latter.

The behaviour of the SNP MP’s yesterday was a disgrace , what an act.

paddyann do you consider that this Scottish born MP is a turncoat for representing an English constituency? Is that what’s so upsetting for you?

To remark that it would be political suicide makes much more sense than saying commit suicide. Why would he say that? Is there a recording to verify which it was?

Filibustering is a well used method in Parliament. Not a good one, but well used. On all sides. By all parties. Including the SNP. MPs are used to it.

He claims he said 'it would be political suicide'
As no-one seemed to have really heard it what Bercow did was correct.

But the Somerset MP says he actually said 'political suicide'.

So - if Bercow didn't hear it, and he was there in the House, how do we know what is in fact true?

Talk about twisting facts !

For goodness sake The word “commit” was not said !

Did he mean 'go and commit suicide' or did he mean the options would be suicide?

There is a difference.

Devolved powers are coming back to Parliament during the
negotiations on Brexit. The EU will only negotiate with the Government for the whole of the UK.

Once we have left, those devolved powers temporarily held plus others, will go back to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, with any amendments that the process of Brexit will necessitate. Wales and Norther Ireland I believe have agreed to this, not that agreement is needed, but I believe there will be some legality involved. The SNP has not, after many many weeks of discussion on this accepted that this will have to happen and have it in writing.

Today there was a stunt as it is being regarded by most Politicians in Parliament, carried out by the SNP under the argument that they were not given enough time to debate the amendments from the Lords pertaining to devolution, last night. It was pointed out by a number of MP's who witnessed the "stunt" in Parliament today, including a well put view of this by Kate Hoey, who said that there were 14 amendments given short introduction and time to make comments, the length of time to do that plus the voting procedure for all of these was short of necessity. She also made the point that this is a Bill returning from the Lords, with amendments and the Bill itself was debated over two days for twelve hours making a total of 24 hours of debate, during which the SNP had their say in that long debate, before the Bill went to the upper house.

It cannot be possible to hear every word said in the house, when asked Bercow passed judgement on it, distateful but not disorderly , sorted.

Distasteful yes, anything else, no.
All sorts gets said ( shouted/muttered/whispered) in Parliament.

Or it's a neat way to stay out of an argument. I didn't hear/see is an old cop out. Isn't the speaker supposed to hear? And also to respond to one MPs complaint about another MP?