King Charles vetting freezing of rents law

[antelopevalley]

Who said they have no real power?

"King Charles has been allowed to vet and potentially lobby for changes to emergency legislation to freeze rents in Scotland because the measures could affect tenants on his private Highland estate at Balmoral.

A bill to stop landlords unjustifiably raising rents for the next six months because of the cost of living crisis is being rushed through the Scottish parliament this week."

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/04/king-charles-allowed-to-vet-proposed-scottish-rent-freeze-law

I agree that the government can change the rules (I posted about that upthread) but the idea that King's Consent is just some random thing and nothing to do with the King is silly.

You just keep changing your arguments and making out I've said things I've never did. 🤔

I've never said the Kings Consent is a random thing. What I've said, as proved by the SNP, the Scottish govt can change the rules as they want. Charles can't change the rules. He can voluntarily decide not to do things but the Scottish govt have decided not to report whether he has or not.

So whether the Kings consent is allowed to carry on as it did with QE2, is down to the SNP.

Other Scottish parties have gone further to say they would be more transparent. But as it looks unlikely any of them would be elected, I guess you could say, well, they would, wouldn't they.

You just keep changing your arguments and making out I've said things I've never did.

Have you considered the possibility you might be unclear? I have just been responding to things you've said and have quoted each time.

If you think I've misunderstood something, perhaps you could rephrase, rather than implying bad motivation?

You could, for example, say:

'I think Kings Consent is a great thing and should be kept. If people want to change it they should vote for parties that will'

or

'I think King's Consent is terrible but I think the UK government should remove it and talking about Charles is a red herring'.

Those are my two best guesses as to what your point is but I might be wrong.

I haven't expressed any opinion on whether it's good or not, or whether I agree or not. What I've said is that the Guardian has implied that Charles has done something underhand whilst at the same time saying it knows nothing.

Also, if the elected Scottish govt wants to change the transparency, they can. Therefore if a person is making this a democratic issue, it might be better to ask why the democratically elected govt doesn't do more to make the process more transparent and, if you're right, why they don't want to expose disagreements.

I've never said it's a random thing.
I never said it had nothing to do with the king. What I said is the transparency of his involvement is not up to him. That's up to the Scottish govt.