The SNP have played a blinder

[Shouldof]

They take the topic of fox hunting, something still legal in Scotland in the form proposed for England and Wales. They oppose the change, which hardly any "man on the street" English will disagree with, in fact many will be thrilled that they could send the vote in their favour (ie anti fox hunting) and the. When the next vote comes along where SNP decide to vote to ban something in England that is legal in Scotland they have a precedent where not only was it accepted unopposed but most supported their move and no English votes for English laws proponent has a leg to stand on.

Bravo Nicola sturgeon (or more likely her canny advisers).

Do you think this fox hunting vote will make it difficult for English votes for English laws moving forward?

Not put this on the FH thread because it's less about that and more about the snp votes on English matters going forward...

The UK parliament in London with an English population of 56 million is NOT the place for EVEL, who is going to help fund a new English only parliament, the Scottish tax payers?

You keep saying the Scottish Amendments were voted down, but are not saying what they are, so you obviously believe that the Scottish MP's should be able to write their own tickets/laws, and stated before the General Election that THEY (with a 5 million) would dictate to England (with a 56 million population) who would form the next May 2015 UK government, as it wouldn't be the Conservatives under any circumstances, even with a 40-seat majority.

On Education, is the Scottish education system a part of the English and/or Welsh one - as if not, why would Scotland who used the extra money they get from the Barnett Formula to offer free uni tuition, have a say on other UK members education policies?

I blame Sturgeon myself, but Scotland seems to think it can punch well above its weight in Westminster....and just keeps whining.

Scottish democracy does not trump anyone elses as you have 56 out of 650 Westminster MPs, the SNP r-e-a-l-l-y needs to get that asap.

I don't 'obviously' believe anything, and more to the point, I really can't be bothered going over the nonsense about Scotland being subsidised again. It's a lot of rubbish.

If you want to know how an English parliament would be funded, look at the current devolution settlements. It's quite straightforward. If you want to know why education is not an English-only issue, again look at the current devolution settlements. It's quite straightforward.

I'll try again - why is it OK for English MPs to vote down every amendment to the Scotland Bill against the wishes and votes of almost all the Scottish MPs but it's not OK for Scottish MPs to vote on fox hunting?

"It's interesting that those who want Scotland back in the box feel the need to constantly compare Scotland to Greece. Sorry, did I say interesting? I meant boring and without foundation."

Ah here it comes, the SNP 'hurt' act after stating what they should get, to try and show they are the picked upon ones.

With Greece, it is part of a larger country group, it wants to be in the EU, it can not pay its own bills if out on its own, with or without a de-valued new domestic currency AND is trying to force their own demands on the other countries with constant threats.

And Scotland...... DITTO....methinks spot-the-difference.

You do know there's a difference between Greece's economic situation and running a perfectly normal deficit? Because you come across as if you don't.

weeburrower1 ....once AGAIN, what was in the Scottish Bill others in Westminster might disagree with when voting it down?

You see to me, it looks as if to you it doesn't matter what SNP demands were, they could make into Scottish law law everyone's first born be called Donald, or even Spiros - you just WANT a basis to whine with no thought of balance to why those amendments might have been opposed.

weebrrower1 .... running a perfectly 'normal' deficit can NOT happen if a country does NOT have capital markets to manage it, a junk credit rating and have to hope on a wing and a prayer the Middle east stops pumping so much oil and an embargoed Iran doesn't one day add to the supply. Ooops.

Firstly, I would appreciate if you could stop telling me what I 'obviously' think or what you think it 'looks as if' to me and just stick to the subject.

Secondly, if you're going to keep avoiding the question I'm going to withdraw from a pointless conversation. The content of the bill is not the issue, the discussion is about MPs voting on particular issues and whether they should or shouldn't.

So once again, why is it OK for English MPs to vote against the wishes and votes of almost all the Scottish MPs on the Scotland Bill amendments (regardless of content) but it's not OK for Scottish MPs to vote on fox hunting (regardless of content)?

The content of the bill is of issue, because the amendments made by the Scottish MPs had a constitutional effect on the whole of the UK, unlike the hunting bill which only had an effect on England and Wales

What constitutional effect? The recommendations of the Smith Commission, most of which were dropped and some of which made up the amendments, had a no detriment clause. No Scotland Bill will or would (should?) pass with a breach of that.

As it happens my preference is for Scottish MPs to not vote on English only matters (I support an English parliament separate from Westminster) but the double standards by many people moaning about it while blithely ignoring the constant trampling of the wishes and votes of the Scottish MPs is beyond ridiculous. Neither the Scotland Bill nor the Hunting Act are devolved, both are under the jurisdiction of the UK parliament and both are therefore subject to the vote of UK MPs. People can't have it all ways.

Weeburrower1 …. Re your ”So once again, why is it OK for English MPs to vote against the wishes and votes of almost all the Scottish MPs on the Scotland Bill amendments (regardless of content) but it's not OK for Scottish MPs to vote on fox hunting (regardless of content)?”

So the Hunting Bill was a Scottish political ploy and it matters not a jot to you what was in the SNP’s Scottish Bill Amendments; it could have been six Scottish demands for more, more, more, more, more, more, money from England to go to Scotland, OR have a constitutional effect on England, Ireland and Wales, your gasted is all of a flabber, because 56 SNP MP’s had as much influence as 6 SNP MPs. lol

Do you, Sturgeon, the Westminster SNP MPs actually understand HOW the UK parliament works – that there is no god given right for ANY amendments to get through – even if say 200 English MP’s from the north, east or west of England DEMANDED it on block???

Using Greece as an example again, as the 56 Westminster seat SNP similarity continues, Syriza thought that their democratic mandate of over half their population TRUMPED the democratic rights of the other, what, 330 million citizens from 18 other States within the Eurozone – and how did THAT turn out?

And while we know Salmond/Sturgeon's tactics have been to 'wind up' little Englanders like me, well be warned by the Greek example as Syriza found out - their antics HARDENED public opinion, which fed through to the politicians who then offered WORSE terms - and that mindset would not be fair to the people of Scotland who did NOT vote for Independence. IMO.

The Smith Commission recommendations, which YOU say “most of which were dropped”, PLEASE BE SPECIFIC, which ones were dropped, were they agreed by the Westminster government at the time of the Scottish Referendum?

All UK citizens see outside Scotland, is the SNP, piss poor losers of that Referendum, wanting to keep ‘the cause and fight’ current, by demanding more and more, yet not using the powers that they have already been given - and your whinging is a perfect example.

Weeburrower1 .... I guess we don’t need to see details of yesterdays Scottish Bill the SNP tried to put through, as this reply to the SNP’s Pete Wishart, sez it how it is, sez what we already KNEW.

Jul 15 2015; ”Scottish Secretary (David Mundell) promises 'substantial' devolution improvements”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33539560

”Mr Mundell replied: "You don't listen.”

"The position has been made very clear repeatedly through the committee stage of this debate, that amendments will come forward at report stage and be debated in this House.”

"But you have been rumbled - you don't want to participate in proper debate about the issues of concern to the people of Scotland, you are interested in press releases and stunts."

P.S. The LAST thing the SNP want, is to get what they wanted.

You continue to evade the question. I have no interest in engaging with your tangents.

As someone who did not vote SNP in the last election (all five of us in this household voted Labour), I feel that MY wishes and votes are being constantly trampled by the raft of SNP MPs.

That would be an issue with the electoral system, not the SNP.

It is an issue with the SNP when they claim to be representing all of Scotland when 50% of us did not vote for them, and when they will not take into account our views.

They were elected on the platform of their own specific manifesto, what do you want them to do? The fact that 50% of Scotland has little representation is, again, a flaw of the electoral system. It was exactly the same when Labour were the dominant party with far less than 50% of the vote.

weeburrower1 ... you don't HAVE a question, the SNP set a rather transparent political trap over two votes, (one on Devolution far more complex and on-going) and trying to use two very different types of policies for a whine.

You were busted, so feel free not to engage further with me, neither of us can add to whats already been said.

SNP are doing a fine job of messing up what was practically speaking quite a useful union on a matter of principal (independence). Good luck to them, independence is an understandable goal.

Of course Scottish Labour helped them on their way with rebooting the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood without providing any answer to the West Lothian question.