To ask scots if they actually like Nicola sturgeon

[Karen85]

Just out of curiosity really because she and her voice make me cringe when i hear her on tv or radio.

Love scots though please don't get me wrong.

Langholm has a 'gaelic' name Langam, I think it was, when surely it was a lang holm, it's on a river, holm comes from Old English or Norse in online dictionary. What does Langam mean in gaelic, surely not the same.

I can't get my head round the idea all other MPs got to speak. How was that possible? Or does it mean a handful were there from other parties but SNP were out in force?

This doesn't sound right to me either, and I suspect there's been a misunderstanding somewhere. Perhaps the SNP members who didn't get to speak were late in the debate that day and got rolled over to the next day, as happened with Joanna Cherry (the cause of Alex Salmond's little spat with the deputy speaker).

I caught her full address yesterday when she gave quite a long speech that wasn't always on topic - she managed to shoe-horn in a statement that support for independence had 'surged' in Scotland, and that if they didn't get what they wanted from their 'compromise' document (they seem to have unilaterally decided it's a compromise, which wouldn't be my definition) they would call for an independence referendum. She also claimed then that she had been 'prevented from speaking' and a point of order was raised in order to correct the record, as she had apparently made several interventions, and so made a considerable contribution to the debate, and was at that moment giving a rather lengthy speech. The deputy speaker said that she assumed Joanna Cherry was making "a rhetorical point rather than an arithmetical one" as her contribution had been substantial.

It certainly doesn't seem to me that the SNP's views weren't heard in the debate. I'm amazed they got away with some things quite honestly.

I think the single market compromise was a compromise, and I genuinely don't understand why Theresa May is taking what is a very narrow margin of victory for leaving the EU (terms and conditions not specified) and deciding to go for an extreme version of this. If it had been 52% Remain and she'd gone for full integration a lot of people would have been furious.

Whether or not the SNP are being singled out (and I cannot comment on this as I haven't followed it), from what one sees of televised proceedings the behaviour in the Westminster chamber is an embarrassment to a supposedly modern, civilised democracy. I am comparing it with the general tone and atmosphere in the German Bundestag, the European Parliament, the Belgian Parliament and indeed, Holyrood. I also think it is revealing that when Labour were in disarray and a request was made that the SNP be accorded the status of official opposition (I must admit I cannot recall whether they were proposing to do this alone or with other parties) the response was one verging on incredulity that a party from one of the devolved nations might have the temerity to suggest this. It was quite telling to see that there was a sense that this was regarded as unthinkable, which does rather suggest that the devolved nations are very much seen as "junior" participants in the Union.

OOAOML I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I don't see how leaving the EU can mean anything other than leaving the single market as it is all so intertwined (which the EU itself makes clear). That's not to say that some kind of access agreement can't be made afterwards. I think the biggest problem with the SNP proposals from my perspective is that they are demanding of the UK government something which ultimately only the EU has the power to grant - i.e. continued single market membership/access for Scotland, which isn't actually an EU member. That's primarily why their stance seems unreasonable to me.

Lastnight I agree, the behaviour is shocking in some of the more heated debates, which tend to be the ones shown on the news etc. You should tune in now though - there's a perfectly calm and reasonable debate on international trade with everyone being very respectful, including the SNP :-)

I think there was incredulity on the SNP becoming the official opposition because of the much smaller number of seats they hold rather than because they're Scottish. Of 650 seats, the Conservatives hold 329, Labour holds 229, and the SNP has 54. Even if Labour split in two it would still have twice as many seats as the SNP.

Oh yes I agree to disagree - the whole 'how to leave the EU' thing seems really badly planned, probably because the main Leave campaigns weren't run by a party in government with a clear prospectus, and there was so much discussion about ways it could be done. I absolutely agree that everything needs to be negotiated with the EU - but I'm incredibly hacked off that Theresa May has announced upfront that she's happy to go for the most extreme of all the possible versions of leaving.

My main problem with the way Brexit is being handled is that there was a binary question on the paper, there was no plan set out, and now we face being railroaded into one interpretation of what people want. People vote for all sorts of reasons, and I don't agree there's a clear mandate for hard Brexit. If hard Brexit was all that could be negotiated, that would be different, but to announce that you're perfectly happy for it before you even start negotiating seems mad.

I had a lot of criticism of the white paper before the Scottish referendum, and I still do, but at least there was something down on paper that people could look at that set out what the aims were - I think a lot of them would have been unachievable, but at least it was clear what people were voting on. But then it was also a much longer campaign, with a lot of thrashing the issues out - the EU campaign seemed so much shorter and with very little debate. And I don't think it was at all clear what should happen afterwards (probably because Cameron thought he could wing it through a third referendum and didn't want to actually prepare to lose it).

Genuinely, I no longer know where I stand politically, and I no longer know with any certainty how I would vote in another referendum, but to bring it back to the original question - no politician or party absolutely speaks for me, but neither can I summon up the knee-jerk opposition that so many have (and which I used to have).

Youcannot - I take the point about the number of seats, and under normal circumstances it would never even be contemplated. It was a very exceptional situation as I recall because it was when Labour were entirely divided and without a leader at a crucial time for the country. I felt it was an interesting suggestion which was perhaps verging on a publicity "stunt"... But, party loyalties aside (unfortunately something which hardly ever happens, and it ought to in a mature democracy, but I digress) there was a lack of leadership and direction in our political classes at that moment and I feel that it was telling how easily the mood changed in the absence of an effective opposition in the immediate post - referendum period. Of course your point about the numbers is also an interesting illustration of how Scotland, even when virtually all of its representatives are from the same party, will never be able to hold much sway at Westminster, as its smaller number of MPs will always be dwarfed.

OOAOML always happy to have a grown-up respectful debate, even if we don't agree. I agree that the Brexit referendum was handled extremely badly and has left the country with some big problems. Both campaigns were run disgracefully, with misleading statements about NHS funding and immigration (don't get me started on Nigel Farage!) on the leave side, and outrageous predictions and an unrealistic vision of the EU as a stable haven of peace and love on the remain side. In retrospect, a lesson for the future would be that no major constitutional change should occur without a substantial majority so that it is decisive. I actually feel quite sorry for Theresa May because she's in an awful position that was Cameron's making. Having said that, I'm not sure what plan could be laid out (and still can be laid out) without the EU's consent, as surely everything has to be agreed with them. The best the government could do would be to publish a wishlist of things they want, which unfortunately would probably weaken their position during the negotiations. It's a rock and hard place type of situation.

I don't necessarily agree that any plan is better than no plan though, as a plan that is a pile of nonsense is no better and may actually be more damaging than playing it by ear. I think the 2014 white paper has been largely shown to be nonsense - imagine if Scotland had become independent and had then had to try and go forward according to those proposals?

Lastnight I totally agree that the lack of opposition is extremely frustrating, and I really wish Labour would sort themselves out as I think an effective opposition is vital. Would the SNP provide that though (ignoring the issue of the number of seats)? They speak as one voice, all the time, but I think that's because dissent is not tolerated rather than genuine unity, and I actually find it quite chilling. I think a range of views have to be allowed to be expressed, sometimes publically, in a healthy democracy, otherwise you will only ever see very narrow agendas being pushed.

And yes, Scotland has a minority of seats in the house because it is a small proportion of the UK population. Anything else would be giving Scotland a special advantage, and would be democratically unacceptable. A party that only stands in Scotland will therefore never have enough seats to have a genuine influence, or, indeed, be 'stronger for Scotland'. You'd have to take that one up with the SNP. However, if/when Scotland votes for nationwide parties it can have, and has had a very significant voice at Westminster; it is less than a decade since both the prime minister and chancellor were Scottish.

Given that Scotland didn't vote to be independent last time then you are right as regards its current position within the UK, YouCannot, and I accept that point. I suppose I was just musing on why remaining in the UK will always involve that democratic deficit for Scotland. Individual people becoming PM can't compensate for a lack of representation for the population as a whole, imo. As I say though, people voted no, so here we are.
I could rant about Brexit, too, but I haven't the time today, sadly. Some very good points being made by PPs. It feels as though the situation is out of control.

Prime Minister's questions is a rabble. But better a rabble where any question can be fired at the PM (as in yesterday when the Surrey Council's possible bribe was brought up) than a planned discussion where the questions are agreed days before, as I believe it is elsewhere.

Skooba - the two things are not mutually exclusive. You can have decent behaviour and time for spontaneous questions.

Lastnight I take the point that some people feel there is a democratic deficit in Scotland. I have to agree to disagree on that as I personally feel Scotland does quite well out of the UK overall. We have a Scottish assembly that has considerable powers over most of things that matter in people's day to day lives (including health, education, welfare, policing, housing, and transport, and now we have enhanced tax-raising powers too, even if they aren't used) so it doesn't matter to a large extent what the Tories do in Westminster. We also have the benefit of the Barnett formula and shared resources and institutions such as the military, BBC, postal service, science funding and so on. Plus, as we've seen recently, the UK is more able to withstand fluctuations in the economy, and when Scotland is in trouble the UK has our back, for instance when RBS crashed.

I understand the anger re. Brexit, but for me the most important question is where to go from here. The UK will leave the EU, and so Scotland will leave the EU, unless the EU miraculously reverses all its policies and decides to grant special privileges to Scotland. Putting aside the fact that Scotland relies on the UK way more than it relies on the EU, the EU is extremely unstable right now, Scotland would not meet their entry criteria, and they cannot afford to fast-track a member state that would be a net drain (which sadly, unlike the UK, we would be). That's assuming it even survives the next few years with the Greek debt crisis and several contentious elections coming to a head. So, if we voted for independence we'd be out of the UK and out of the EU, and we'd still have massive debt and a fragile economy (because, as yet, our economy is not diverse or stable enough to support us). I just don't see how that is a sensible way forward.

I think in both parliaments the opposition questions can be any question (although obviously the preparation is in guessing what they will go on) and the backbench questions are plants.

I have in the past been pretty vocal about the SNP 'loyalty clause' - it is fascinating to see people like Alex Neill come out and say he voted to Leave, as generally the discipline/message is solid. When you look at the Westminster intake, though, a lot of them are new to elected office - I'd hope that in time there would be more nuance, I think rebellions can be healthy and it isn't good for a party to not have that debate and discussion. Although Labour have a lot of debate and they're a mess.

To me, it feels like both parliaments are stuck in this loop of constitutional wrangling. Not sure about Wales, just realised I don't see a lot of coverage from there. And of course NI are having an election....I don't see this calming down any time soon.

Last I suppose the only way would be if we had alliances, possibly under PR, but under the current system a party that only stands in a limited number of seats has limited influence. And I think the position of parties on constitutional issues makes the 'progressive alliance' idea a non-starter just now.

YouCannot - you make good points and I too am failing to see a sensible way forward right now. This is partly why I cannot get involved in campaigning for specific things to happen right now, and feel "stuck". I'd like to say I am pragmatic but I find it difficult to see how to make the best of the current situation and I'm feeling pretty low about it all. Apart from these few tentative posts here I feel bad for not participating more. What can we do? I guess that's why I feel strongly that we could at least try to protect the "process" by eg enforcing decent behaviour in the Commons, reducing the extent to which we attack or judge politicians for superficial things such as their appearance (particularly problematic for the women in politics, I don't think I'm being controversial there), or their voice (OP seemed to be going in that direction?), or their accent, or their poshness/or otherwise, or their party political affiliation alone - I'd like to see politicians' contributions properly assessed on their content and ideas debated without the focus on "personalities". Perhaps it's a pipe area in our shallow media-driven world! But I can dream.
Thanks for the interesting debate.

Lastnight I totally share your frustrations and agree with pretty much everything you say. I really wish we could have a period of stability and let everything settle down after two very divisive referendums in a short space of time. I just want to get on with life without having all this hanging over my head. The thought of having to go through another referendum makes me sick with dread.

I also think it is revealing that when Labour were in disarray and a request was made that the SNP be accorded the status of official opposition (I must admit I cannot recall whether they were proposing to do this alone or with other parties) the response was one verging on incredulity that a party from one of the devolved nations might have the temerity to suggest this

Oh come off it.

This is exactly the sort of nonsense the SNP and indy supporters invent to try to show how oppressed and hard done by poor Scotland is.

The Labour party is the official opposition because it has the largest number of seats. It is ridiculous to suggest that notwithstanding Corbyn's personal failings that the SNP should be the official opposition.

They speak as one voice, all the time, but I think that's because dissent is not tolerated rather than genuine unity, and I actually find it quite chilling. I think a range of views have to be allowed to be expressed, sometimes publically, in a healthy democracy, otherwise you will only ever see very narrow agendas being pushed

Now that's the truth. The best you can get is silly statements like Mairi Black's " holding her nose" comment.

"A range of views have to be expressed in a healthy democracy" I agree. And once Scotland is independent we will be able to have a healthy democracy. Until then the SNP are together, focused on what they absolutely believe is best for Scotland. They have the same aims and principles. It is not sinister. They are working as one to deliver their plainly stated aims. I am surprised that this 'chills' anyone. The current situation is about as undemocratic as it could be for Scotland imo.

The current situation is about as undemocratic as it could be for Scotland imo

What is undemocratic is saying "once in a generation" and not making clear they were talking about the generational span of drosophila.

So what you're saying Nyx is that you're happy to live in an unhealthy democracy. Really?!

Independence is not going to happen. This country needs to be governed properly for the good of everyone in the country. Not governed according to what they think is most likely to get them independence.

And I'm sick fed up of people banging on about democracy when they have fuck all respect for the outcome of a democratic vote.

Of course I'm not happy. That's why I want independence for Scotland. I don't understand people 'banging on' about the indyref result not being respected. We are still in the UK.

The manifesto that the SNP was elected on said:
‘The Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum...if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.’ And on that manifesto they won the highest number of seats in holyrood. That is democratic. UDI was not declared! They believe the Scottish people are sovereign. I wish unionists would stop complaining about the SNP working towards fulfilling their mandate. What on earth are they worried about? Why the dread and horror at the thought of another indyref? If the very idea is as ridiculous as i am being told then what is the problem.

Because the country is suffering still from the division cause by the last referendum. The last thing we need is another one.

Imagine if all the effort, time and money spent on bloody independence was directed towards actually making Scotland better. Instead it's a drain on our resources and Scotland is being run into the ground. For something that the majority do not want.

And the SNP did not get a majority in the last election so they have NO MANDATE for another referendum. That's democracy for you.

Perhaps the majority do want it now though, since hard brexit is going to happen and Westminster are going to take control of agriculture and fishing and use them in their brexit negotiations (biting my lip here). I don't know and neither do you. There is one way to find out.