"One of the most powerful devolved Governments in the world"

[Bookworm]

You lost. Get over it.

Aye, we all lost the day John MacCormick managed to force a hard shite oot and came up with the great idea of changing the abbreviation of the NPS to SNP. Did you think the 56 would take longer to be assimilated into the Westminster Parliament. Bought and paid for now. Will you be making an over payment to Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs? Its just that you forgot to say.

[Big Rider]

Defo not Encona chum, something a wee bit harder it looks like.

[Bookworm]

Defo not Encona chum, something a wee bit harder it looks like.

Extra hot is the stuff I use. I need to keep my toilet roll in the fridge or it catches fire when used. I also go for a shite with a bowl of ice cubes at hand. Scorcher!!

[Alan Stubbs]

I see big Davy Mundell has said a big nah to the FFA amendment. I think we can take the Tories' "time for Scotland to stand on its own two feet" patter and "most poweful devolved government in the world" statement and file it safely under bluff called.

[Colkitto]

Westminster just voted against making the Scottish parliament permanent. Vow broken, well done again no voters!

[sparky88]

Westminster just voted against making the Scottish parliament permanent. Vow broken, well done again no voters!

I'm distraught.

[Ad Lib]

Westminster just voted against making the Scottish parliament permanent. Vow broken, well done again no voters!

No they didn't. They voted down an SNP amendment which would have changed the words of sub-clause 1(1) from:

"(1A) The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitution.

To:

"(1A) The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitution.

(1B) Subsection (1) or (1A) may be repealed only if—

(a) the Scottish Parliament has consented to the proposed repeal, and

(b) a referendum has been held in Scotland on the proposed repeal and a majority of those voting at the referendum have consented to it."

This does not make the Scottish Parliament any more permanent within the terms of reference of the Smith Commission than the original wording. For one very simple reason.

An Act of the UK Parliament can repeal subsection (1B) without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Because it is sovereign.

Certainly it is a stronger political protection, and defying the Sewel Convention would carry a stronger political cost, but it would not have made the Scottish Parliament any more permanent than the Bill would already. Indeed, I would argue neither the Bill nor the Amendment make the Parliament any more permanent than the Scotland Act itself!

[doulikefish]

Blah blah blah

[Sarto Mutiny]

No they didn't. They voted down an SNP amendment which would have changed the words of sub-clause 1(1) from:

"(1A) The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitution.

To:

"(1A) The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitution.

(1B) Subsection (1) or (1A) may be repealed only if—

(a) the Scottish Parliament has consented to the proposed repeal, and

(b) a referendum has been held in Scotland on the proposed repeal and a majority of those voting at the referendum have consented to it."

This does not make the Scottish Parliament any more permanent within the terms of reference of the Smith Commission than the original wording. For one very simple reason.

An Act of the UK Parliament can repeal subsection (1B) without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Because it is sovereign.

Certainly it is a stronger political protection, and defying the Sewel Convention would carry a stronger political cost, but it would not have made the Scottish Parliament any more permanent than the Bill would already. Indeed, I would argue neither the Bill nor the Amendment make the Parliament any more permanent than the Scotland Act itself!

Aye, this. It's a boring constitutional law point, but Parliament cannot bind itself. Therefore, anything which prevents Parliament from doing anything is by definition unconstitutional.

Or, if you prefer, if that amendment was passed, it would mean the square root of f**k all. Because Westminster could still abolish the Scottish Parliament if it wanted to.

[The Master]

Blah blah blah

See, this is why it's difficult to debate sometimes.

What Ad Lib said is absolutely spot on.

[Ad Lib]

See, this is why it's difficult to debate sometimes.

What Ad Lib said is absolutely spot on.

What we see on here is curiously symptomatic of the SNP's entire approach to the Scotland Bill so far. Make an inaccurate or disingenuous claim about "Wastemonster" voting against "the Vow" or "the Smith Agreement". Then, when you get challenged on the detail of what the SNP actually proposed in Parliament, deny, then deflect, then accuse the Unionists of hiding behind the detail. Then finish by saying that these weasel words are symptomatic of a broken Westminster system that talks Scotland down.

Rinse and repeat.

The same happened when the SNP went round claiming that Labour MPs had voted against allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the EU referendum. This was totally untrue. What was actually the case was that the SNP put forward an amendment that would have killed the EU Referendum Bill completely (by denying it a second reading) and one of the reasons given in their amendment was the failure to include 16 and 17 year olds in the franchise. That Labour had put forward their own amendment to the bill to extend the franchise, and said they were prepared to use the House of Lords to force it through if they could, but were not prepared to support a motion to kill the bill, didn't matter to the SNP. No, they wanted an easy "Labour vote with the Tories against young people" message that they could, all 56 of them, perpetuate mythically in 140 characters or fewer.

[doulikefish]

See, this is why it's difficult to debate sometimes.

What Ad Lib said is absolutely spot on.

What as usual he missed out,is it would have been the will of the scottish people for it to be dissolved,now all it takes is for westminster to dissolve it

[The Master]

What as usual he missed out,is it would have been the will of the scottish people for it to be dissolved,now all it takes is for westminster to dissolve it

OK, under the original (and now agreed-to) wording, how would Westminster dissolve the Scottish Parliament?

Hint: the thing preventing them from doing so is (or soon will be) established in an Act of Parliament.

[Ad Lib]

What as usual he missed out,is it would have been the will of the scottish people for it to be dissolved,now all it takes is for westminster to dissolve it

1. No I didn't "miss that out". See the words "certainly it is a stronger political protection".

2. My point is even with that provision on the statute book, it doesn't actually require the "will of the Scottish people for it to be dissolved". All it requires is the "Abolition of the Scottish Parliament Act 2016" to contain the section "The Scotland Act shall be repealed" or even "Sections 1, 1A and 1B of the Scotland Act shall be repealed" and the Scottish Parliament is gone. Literally the only difference, legally, is that if you were wanting only to get rid of the Scottish Parliament but not the whole Act, you now have to insert "1B" onto a list of sections.

[sparky88]

The only people that care about the vow are folk who voted yes in the referendum. Opinion polls show that it had a negligable impact on how people voted.

[Wee Bully]

1. No I didn't "miss that out". See the words "certainly it is a stronger political protection".

Which surely, in a political environment, is exactly what the SNP should be fighting for.

The amendment being defeated equally has a political impact in relation to the vow. All the "it wouldn't have made a difference anyway" chat in the world at best marginalises and at worst ignores the fact that each of these perceived blocking actions, breaking promises made, pushes Scotland closer and closer to independence.

I would have thought that if the amendment is effectually meaningless, then it would have been a sensible one for the Government to "give up", making it look like they were playing the game and governing with respect, but without actually having any impact on them?

[Shades75]

The only people that care about the vow are folk who voted yes in the referendum. Opinion polls show that it had a negligable impact on how people voted.

I'd have thought that most right thinking people in Scotland would be at least a little miffed if they feel that they've been lied to, whether they want those powers or not.

I'd suggest that a lot of yes voters will be quite happy to see the vow promises broken. But for very different reasons than no voters.

[Shades75]

What we see on here is curiously symptomatic of the SNP's entire approach to the Scotland Bill so far. Make an inaccurate or disingenuous claim about "Wastemonster" voting against "the Vow" or "the Smith Agreement". Then, when you get challenged on the detail of what the SNP actually proposed in Parliament, deny, then deflect, then accuse the Unionists of hiding behind the detail. Then finish by saying that these weasel words are symptomatic of a broken Westminster system that talks Scotland down.

Rinse and repeat.

The same happened when the SNP went round claiming that Labour MPs had voted against allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the EU referendum. This was totally untrue. What was actually the case was that the SNP put forward an amendment that would have killed the EU Referendum Bill completely (by denying it a second reading) and one of the reasons given in their amendment was the failure to include 16 and 17 year olds in the franchise. That Labour had put forward their own amendment to the bill to extend the franchise, and said they were prepared to use the House of Lords to force it through if they could, but were not prepared to support a motion to kill the bill, didn't matter to the SNP. No, they wanted an easy "Labour vote with the Tories against young people" message that they could, all 56 of them, perpetuate mythically in 140 characters or fewer.

You took all that from one post saying, "blah, blah, blah."?

[Shades75]

What we see on here is curiously symptomatic of the SNP's entire approach to the Scotland Bill so far. Make an inaccurate or disingenuous claim about "Wastemonster" voting against "the Vow" or "the Smith Agreement". Then, when you get challenged on the detail of what the SNP actually proposed in Parliament, deny, then deflect, then accuse the Unionists of hiding behind the detail. Then finish by saying that these weasel words are symptomatic of a broken Westminster system that talks Scotland down.

Rinse and repeat.

The same happened when the SNP went round claiming that Labour MPs had voted against allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the EU referendum. This was totally untrue. What was actually the case was that the SNP put forward an amendment that would have killed the EU Referendum Bill completely (by denying it a second reading) and one of the reasons given in their amendment was the failure to include 16 and 17 year olds in the franchise. That Labour had put forward their own amendment to the bill to extend the franchise, and said they were prepared to use the House of Lords to force it through if they could, but were not prepared to support a motion to kill the bill, didn't matter to the SNP. No, they wanted an easy "Labour vote with the Tories against young people" message that they could, all 56 of them, perpetuate mythically in 140 characters or fewer.

To your second point: You said that politicians lie and that it is part of the game to do so. Is that the case only when it suits?

As a matter of balance, all week Tommy Shepherds comments on FFA have been continually quoted out of context by politicians from the Labour Party and the Tories. To the extent that he wrote a column to address it.

I guess that, given the rules of this apparent "game" though, we have to accept it as par for the course?

[Baxter Parp]

OK, under the original (and now agreed-to) wording, how would Westminster dissolve the Scottish Parliament?

Hint: the thing preventing them from doing so is (or soon will be) established in an Act of Parliament.

Because Westminster can do anything and there are no checks on its power at least in regard to the (non-existent) British constitution.