Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Nicola Sturgeon says the SNP will vote on English laws watch

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    Scotland want to continue voting on English-only matters because they are predominantly more progressive than we are. This has nothing to do with knock-on effects- this is Labour wanting to maintain their foothold on British politics (which they are failing).
    Labour having a significant number of MPs in Scotland? That's a nice joke.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1tartanarmy)
    Suits my agenda perfectly...the greater the divide in any aspect of Scotland and England the better. I'm all for english devolution, english votes for english laws etc...but for as long as the SNP can vote on matters then they should do just that. It will speed up english votes for english laws if anything.

    Independence by the back door. For both countries.
    Yet it's not independence at all, front or back door. It's devolution. Just as devolving powers from Holyrood to Glasgow doesn't make Glasgow independent.

    You seem to assume devolution will strengthen the case for nationalism. I don't think it does at all. It can be used as a platform for nationalists, but there are plenty of very decentralised states out there that are as united as can be.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1tartanarmy)
    Funny thing is....the more we moan and whine, the more we get offered...we have been offered so much that now even the unionists (labour etc) believe scotland should get more. The appetite for less powers will never happen...therfore each power transfer is a baby step towards the ultimate goal.
    You do realise the Scottish Parliament getting "more powers" isn't actually getting anything more, yeah? It doesn't cost Westminster anything, and actually restricts the Scottish Parliament who now have to be fiscally responsible for their decisions.

    "Fewer powers" is an interesting one. Ultimately the Scottish Parliament passes responsibility to the UK Parliament for making laws on its behalf a lot through Sewel Motions. I do think we will end up with the legislative powers staying, but I also imagine we will see a greater tendency to do things together once the parliament matures.

    I also suspect the UK Government will do more in areas it doesn't have actual legislative power: more direct grants of cash to local authorities and organisations in Scotland for specific purposes and so on. This has been a small but increasing trend, and doesn't require any legislative change.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1tartanarmy)
    And whats happening.....job losses galore....exactly what the pro union parties said wouldnt happen as we could "pool and share resources"....an independent scotland would have built up an oil fund that would be used in times such as these.
    That's nothing short of a lie. The number of people in jobs in Scotland has increased dramatically in recent years.

    As for the oil industry - I thought nationalists accused unionists of suggesting it had a bleak future during the referendum? Well, it turned out that it did. If anything, the unionists were too generous in their assessment of Scotland's economic opportunities pre-referendum - if anything, I think we would now be looking seriously at bankruptcy has the vote gone the wrong way.

    "Pooling and sharing resources" is, if you actually read the words involved, about public finances - despite a huge drop in oil revenues, our public finances will remain stable. We don't need an oil fund - and an independent Scotland could not have built up an oil fund without even larger public spending cuts. So no net positive at all.

    It's peculiar to see the an economic argument so ably demonstrated as the pro-UK one has been in such a short period of time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    Scotland want to continue voting on English-only matters because they are predominantly more progressive than we are. This has nothing to do with knock-on effects- this is Labour wanting to maintain their foothold on British politics (which they are failing).
    Nope. "English only" is more difficult to define than you think it is. For example, if WM want to vote in cutting the NHS budget by 10% (not saying they would before anyone plays the man rather than the ball), then the Scottish block grant is cut correspondingly. That's not an English only issue.

    If WM vote to transfer funding from homeopathy to mental health in England alone, then that is an English-only issue and the SNP will not vote on it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    Well no more so than votes on specific English laws would have on Scottish Funding surely?
    How many times does this have to be spelled out?

    The block grant given to the Scottish government is a percentage of the total spending decided on at Westminster. If WM votes to increase English NHS spending, the Scottish block grant increases. If WM votes to decrease NHS spending, the Scottish block grant decreases.

    The Scottish government decides how to spend the block grant it receives, therefore this has no effect on England.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    No change in plan. Just wondering why the snp have done a huge U turn and said they'll start voting in devolved issues.....amazingly, the majority of their rather vocal moaning seems to be about devolved issues.
    Because it makes sense probably.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gordon1985)
    Because it makes sense probably.
    No it doesn't.

    It highlights how dumb a lot of snp supporters are getting upset over issues that the snp already control
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gordon1985)
    How many times does this have to be spelled out?

    The block grant given to the Scottish government is a percentage of the total spending decided on at Westminster. If WM votes to increase English NHS spending, the Scottish block grant increases. If WM votes to decrease NHS spending, the Scottish block grant decreases.

    The Scottish government decides how to spend the block grant it receives, therefore this has no effect on England.
    So in what sense is that an English law if it's westminster voting on TOTAL spending for the UK?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    So in what sense is that an English law if it's westminster voting on TOTAL spending for the UK?
    Jesus Christ.

    These are the laws/votes the SNP are talking about voting on. Stuff like 'should gay marriage be legal in England' or 'what should the curriculum be in English' schools isn't what the SNP and (by extension) everyone on this thread are talking about.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    No it doesn't.

    It highlights how dumb a lot of snp supporters are getting upset over issues that the snp already control
    It doesn't make sense for SNP MPs elected to the UK parliament to vote on issues which effect Scotland? Do you even think before you type this garbage?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gordon1985)
    It doesn't make sense for SNP MPs elected to the UK parliament to vote on issues which effect Scotland? Do you even think before you type this garbage?
    Health is a devolved issue.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Health is a devolved issue.
    Eh… yes. Yes it is. What's your point?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gordon1985)
    Eh… yes. Yes it is. What's your point?
    Why has the snp suddenly decided to vote on health issues in westminster?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Why has the snp suddenly decided to vote on health issues in westminster?
    They've said they will vote on any issue which has a knock on effect on Scotland.

    Because of the way the funding of the block grant works, funding issues in Westminster concerning devolved matters do have an effect on the Scottish block grant. I'm not really sure how that can be made much clearer.

    So the SNP will not vote on purely administrative issues concerning the NHS in England but, for example, if there was a vote in the commons on whether to increases privatisation of the NHS in England, the SNP have said they will vote on this because it will affect the Scottish Parliament's funding.

    If you want my own opinion about why they've made this decision now, I'd say it's the correct decision and if they weren't doing it before, that was a mistake, which they are now correcting.

    From a purely political angle it also makes sense. If the SNP do as well as the polls are predicting, they could well hold the balance of power on westminster. It puts them in a much stronger position if they widen the range of issues they are willing to vote on.

    You're obviously annoyed that this is a possibility but raging about something which makes complete logical sense, they are entirely entitled to do and every other party has been doing for 16 years, seems more than a little deranged.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gordon1985)
    They've said they will vote on any issue which has a knock on effect on Scotland.

    Because of the way the funding of the block grant works, funding issues in Westminster concerning devolved matters do have an effect on the Scottish block grant. I'm not really sure how that can be made much clearer.

    So the SNP will not vote on purely administrative issues concerning the NHS in England but, for example, if there was a vote in the commons on whether to increases privatisation of the NHS in England, the SNP have said they will vote on this because it will affect the Scottish Parliament's funding.

    If you want my own opinion about why they've made this decision now, I'd say it's the correct decision and if they weren't doing it before, that was a mistake, which they are now correcting.

    From a purely political angle it also makes sense. If the SNP do as well as the polls are predicting, they could well hold the balance of power on westminster. It puts them in a much stronger position if they widen the range of issues they are willing to vote on.

    You're obviously annoyed that this is a possibility but raging about something which makes complete logical sense, they are entirely entitled to do and every other party has been doing for 16 years, seems more than a little deranged.
    I'm not annoyed with anything.

    I'm just convene nes that the snp isn't abiding by it's pledge to acknowledge the referendum result and continues to protest wedge politics.
    Did we find out why nhs scotland never matched nhs England and wales's spending increase and we're
    Lagging behind?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I'm not annoyed with anything.

    I'm just convene nes that the snp isn't abiding by it's pledge to acknowledge the referendum result and continues to protest wedge politics.
    Did we find out why nhs scotland never matched nhs England and wales's spending increase and we're
    Lagging behind?
    The SNP have obviously acknowledged and accepted the result. That doesn't mean they won't keep arguing for independence and more powers for Scotland. Only a complete lunatic would think they wouldn't or shouldn't.

    As for the health spending question. I'm not entirely sure of the most recent figures you seem to be referring to. Do you have a link?

    A quick google shows that UK health spending is at 18% and Scotland is at 17.3%. Although per head, I'd guess that puts Scotland ahead due to higher public spending per person.

    Either way, the simple answer would be that the Scottish government has chosen to distribute spending differently. It's farcical to imagine the SG would match the relative spending of WM on all devolved matters or else what would the point of the SG be?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gordon1985)
    The SNP have obviously acknowledged and accepted the result. That doesn't mean they won't keep arguing for independence and more powers for Scotland. Only a complete lunatic would think they wouldn't or shouldn't.

    As for the health spending question. I'm not entirely sure of the most recent figures you seem to be referring to. Do you have a link?

    A quick google shows that UK health spending is at 18% and Scotland is at 17.3%. Although per head, I'd guess that puts Scotland ahead due to higher public spending per person.

    Either way, the simple answer would be that the Scottish government has chosen to distribute spending differently. It's farcical to imagine the SG would match the relative spending of WM on all devolved matters or else what would the point of the SG be?
    I've still yet to understand the purpose of Holyrood myself other than create a significant amount of non jobs
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I've still yet to understand the purpose of Holyrood myself other than create a significant amount of non jobs
    Or even how it works apparently.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gordon1985)
    Or even how it works apparently.
    I'm fully aware of how it works.

    It costs a lot to pass laws that are the same as rUK.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.