Piers Morgan’s interview with Nicola Sturgeon

Callistemon we do raise our own taxes we then hand them over to Westminster who gives us a % back ,cunningly called the Barnett formula ..they keep the rest ,spend them as THEY want run up debts and tell us that those debts are ours!!! Now as far as I'm aware we dont use London Crossrail or London sewers or Boris' garden bridge etc etc etc .So why on earth would we run up debts to pay for them.

The FACT is Westminster cant survive without Scotlands financial input ...its all out there for people who want facts..not the nonsense WM has been feeding England for centuries ...there are even some old accounts in existence to prove it ..before they realised it might upset folk to see that 70% of their countries income was being spent elswhere .

The ignorance of the truth about the Scottish situation is amazing...or maybe not there are still some unionists who believe it here too .Of course EVEL is relevant to your post ,in a parliament where the numbers are so heavily in favour of England WHY would they have needed EVEL OR a seperate assembly? They get their own way all the time anyway !!

farnorth yes I was aware of EVEL, it it wasn’t relevant to my original point.

FarNorth perhaps the answer is for Scots to raise their own taxes? Then they can spend as they wish.
As it is, they receive more per capita than anywhere else in the UK, consequently their health services should be better.
I don't know if they are, but some Scottish grans seem to think not.

No, I didn't.
Perhaps there is no answer until, as grumppa suggests, England has its own devolved Parliament.
Then, of course, Wales and NI will want promotion to.

Personally, I was and am generally against devolution. The result in Wales was extremely close, with a 0.6 majority in favour of the consequent waste of money.
But that s democracy.

Grumppa your post did not answer paddyanne.
Are you aware of EVEL?
Did you know that, even before EVEL, SNP MPs did not vote on matters which affected only England?
Did you know that EVEL is now used to exclude Scots MPs from voting on matters which do affect Scotland indirectly e.g. NHS funding?

Callistemon 11th May 18.45

… Did you get an answer to your question?

Because I've wondered about that each time she comes on.

paddyanne, I have been off this thread or I would have replied to you sooner. My point was that England should have had a devolved assembly like the other parts of the UK for matters devolved from the central government. This would have put England on the same footing as Scotland vis-à-vis 10 Downing Street. This works for Germany: why not for the UK?

I tend to agree with P.G. Wodehouse that it is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine, but I think you were just a little hard on my suggestion, that was based on a desire to even things up between the component parts of the UK.

paddyanne I agree with you.
Though I'm not a Scot we're near the border and my sister has lived and worked there most of her life. We have little in common.

whats not true about it? that 85% will ALWAYS get their way against the 15% or that they get a say on matters affecting the devolved nations ....trust me its true .Look for the facts.oh and another fact.the SNP have NEVER voted on any matter that didn't concern Scotland in Westminster .Thats the ELECTED representatives of the Scottish people ,the ones laughed at and shouted down and told to F off back to Skye etc etc etc .Such respectful people the English MP's ....not

Not true, paddyanne
But I expect that grumppa is au fait with the the meaning of EVEL.

Grumpa never heard of EVEL ?It means the devolved nations cant vote on English matters ...yet English MP's CAN vote on Scottish ones

England doesn't need an assembly it has Westminster ,85 % of politicians in Westminster are English therefor they can put anything through the house without fear of any of the devolved nations being able to make a difference .

Dr Swaminathan, the chief scientist of the World Health Organisation was interviewed by Andrew Marr this morning. The main message she had was that decisions about loosening restrictions must be made locally.

www.ft.com/content/69c75de6-9c6b-4bca-b110-2a55296b0875

The mess is more to do with the fact that we have a PM who consistently refuses to work with the devolved administrations. For the leaders of these administrations to have to find out about his plans from the Sunday papers is ridiculous. I agree that their comms programme has been a mess - it’s been jaw dropping in its awfulness.

This whole sorry saga has underlined the mess that has been created by England not having an assembly to match those in Cardiff and Edinburgh. At the very least, on devolved issues there should be a Secretary of State responsible for English matters who is not also the UK Prime Minister.

The Government's entire communications programme has been a complete mess; come back Bernard Ingham or Alastair Campbell.

You mean - how can we have a spirit of unity when three of the four parts of the UK are doing one thing and the fourth is doing something very different with no consultation or agreement with the other three whilst providing so little or no detail as to how the four parts should be aligned?

You can’t - and Boris should have perhaps thought about that before he showed the usual contempt he always does for the devolved administrations.

How can you have a spirit of unity with everyone wanting to do their own thing. I don’t agree with you Sirchenin, I’ll leave it at that, you have your opinion I have mine. This is being turned into a political debate.

I’m sure she’s devastated.

I don't know why we have her daily briefing on BBC1 every lunchtime. There is BBC Scotland, why don't they put her on that? When we see her we turn over and watch Bargain Hunt.

Preliminary analysis of the findings of this project (which still has almost three hours to go if you wish to add your two penn'orth) blogs.gov.scot/digital-engagement/2020/05/08/coronavirus-covid-19-conversation-proves-very-popular/

Quote - "What’s important to you?

When asked what one change would have the most positive impact on people’s life, the comments tended to centre around a desire to allow greater social contact, with widespread concern raised about the impact on mental health. However, although the ‘bubble ‘ concept’ was accepted in principle there was a view it would be hard to implement in practice. There was a generally positive view on the prospect of relaxing restrictions on going outdoors more often with a perception that the risk was lower and it again would help improve quality of life:

“Family contact is a must. Most people could happily endure the restrictions longer with this small change. I have a family member with severe and enduring mental health issues hurtling towards the point of no return. I have not broken the lockdown yet, but every day I consider it.”

“Social bubbles are superficially attractive but do not reflect the realities or complexities of real lives. Becoming part of a bubble requires choices which may simply add social pressure rather than relieving it. The portrayal has often been about it being a way to allow grandparents to see grandchildren. But the reality is that any decision to include is by default a decision to exclude. I’m not sure that given the pressures and stresses of the Covid world we can afford to add (even accidentally) another level of stress and potentially division. When the moment is right perhaps close family should be permitted contact by default while other social groups should be allowed to meet up out of doors in small numbers – say four, with social distancing required.”

If you live in Scotland (and maybe if you don't!) you have until 10pm tonight to make comments and suggestions on the Scottish coronavirus decision-making framework. www.ideas.gov.scot/covid-19-a-framework-for-decision-making/

I found myself welling up when I listened to/saw her address to the people of Scotland on tv just now. Which wasn't how I felt last night listening to the PM. I find her incredibly statesmanlike.

The same could be said of the timing of lockdown in almost all countries.

I'd like to know (and no-one has been able to answer this as yet) why she gets so much air-time?
It's as if she has to have the equivalent airtime as the PM of the whole of the UK. She is First Minister of a population of 5.454 million, Mark Drakeford is First Minister of a population of 3.136 million but we hear ten or fifteen times as much from Sturgeon as we do from Drakeford.

Which publicity agency does she use? It's very effective.
Why?

Maybe read this article first before judging Ms Sturgeon. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52617895