Westminster has been at its disgraceful worst today, as the Tory government dismissed out of hand each and every amendment to the Scotland Bill put forward by the party that Scotland gave such an overwhelming electoral mandate to only last month. It seems that "this goes beyond the Smith Commission" is considered a perfectly sufficient excuse for rejecting absolutely any amendment, even though "this falls short of the Smith Commission" apparently isn't a good enough reason for beefing up the Bill. You really couldn't make this stuff up.
There was one minor chink of light, though. The SNP's amendment that would have made the Scottish Parliament a permanent institution - in line with the solemn "Vow" that David Cameron supposedly made to the people of Scotland - was only rejected by 302 votes to 271. That means Labour must have breached the so-called Bain Principle and actually voted in favour of an SNP amendment, and it seems likely that the Lib Dems followed suit. If so, the government should be heading for a defeat on this issue in the Lords, where Labour and the Lib Dems in combination easily outnumber the Tories.
But that depends on the amendment actually being tabled in the Lords, which harks back to the problem I raised last month - the SNP can't do it themselves, because they don't have any representation in the Lords. OK, maybe Labour or the Lib Dems will table some sort of amendment along the same lines - but will it take exactly the form that we would wish? Whatever our principled objections to the Lords as an unelected chamber, it would be extremely helpful for tactical reasons if the SNP had some kind of limited presence there, so that they can at least table amendments and occasionally shame Labour and the Lib Dems into going slightly further than would otherwise be the case.
I hope the SNP have a strategy for dealing with the Lords stage of the Scotland Bill. The good news is that Plaid Cymru's brilliant former leader Dafydd Wigley is a member of the upper chamber, so in theory he could help out, but I'm not sure whether it's fair or practical to put all the responsibility on him alone. I've no idea whether there are one or two crossbench peers who have some sympathy with the SNP, but if by any chance there are, the party should be getting hold of their phone numbers as a matter of some urgency.
* * *
They say that even a broken clock is accurate twice a day, which terrifyingly means that Kenny "Devo or Death" Farquharson is almost certainly less accurate than a broken clock. But to give him his due, he did have one of his rare moments of profound insight earlier this evening -
"Smith was the Whitehall response to the indyref. So what is the Whitehall response to Scottish general election result? There isn't one."
Oooo, wait for the principled ones to read this....I agree wholeheartedly though. Snp stance is backward and things such as this only highlight that. What other things could snp membership in the lords affect?
ReplyDeleteThere are houses of parliament, both are instrumental in how they affect scotland. We are in 50% of them. We cant represent scotland interests without being in there.
Rubbish. HoL is as outmoded and as unfit for purpose as HoC. Don't worry though, we'll be gone from these house of paedos soon enough.
ReplyDeleteThe SNP are now the third party at Westminster ,they are the largest party representing the Scottish people and nation there and whether we like it or not Westminster has a huge say on how Scotland is governed. Therefore perhaps the time has come for Scotland's party of government to reconsider its stance on not being fully represented at Westminster .Its no longer about ideology rather it is about using every instrument available to both represent and protect Scotland's national interest from an alien and unwanted government in London .
ReplyDeleteThe independence movement doesn't fall apart because our polticians become corrupted by Westminster, transform into our opponents and become unionists on the sly. It is much more likely to founder because we sell our principles trying to achieve our goals.
ReplyDeleteOur principles aren't set in stone but there is a massive downside to joining the Lords (I've gone into that in detail before with the blogger before here and on twitter) and piteously little upside, The logic behind the argument is there but it is superficial.
The Scottish parliament is not in danger of being abolished. If it were to be abolished then a majority in Scotland in a Westminster election would return as the default for declaring Independence or at every least holding a referendum. We have just won 56 out of 59 seats
The punters aren't stupid and will see what went on the H of C today. Scotland is in a colonial position politically and we are being told by the blogger that part of the solution to that is to join a House Lords that we loathe in order to try and gain the support of people who hold us in near total contempt?
What right would an SNP Lord have today to frame an amendment to the bill to make the Scottish parliament permanent? What are the specific rules for that? I would like to know the answer to that actually if a link could be posted by someone it would be appreciated.
Even without knowing the rules behind how likely it is we could actually interfere with a bill going through the lords. How likely would it be that a nationalist amendment would succeed? Would the nearly 900 unionist lords (Labour, Lib or Tory) support it on the basis that most Labour and Liberals supported it in the Commons? George Foulkes? Robertson? There must be a reasonable doubt that the Lords would vote for Westminster sovereignty rather than an SNP amendment. If the Lords voted with a nationalist amendment it can go back to the House of Commons for further amendments.
Today’s vote shows Westminster up for what it is. The Scottish parliament is under no threat and Independence would come all the quicker if it were. Having 1 or two or half a dozen Lords out of 900 unionist Lords gives us nothing and splinters the independence movement. It is a trap and is most likely to be picked up and be promoted by those who oppose Scottish Independence. The arguments for joining the Lords in order to be properly represented are false arguments
"and piteously little upside"
DeleteI've described the upside in the blogpost, and it's hardly a superficial one - it could make all the difference to the powers the Scottish Parliament ends up with as a result of this process.
"What right would an SNP Lord have today to frame an amendment to the bill to make the Scottish parliament permanent?"
The same right as any other Lord.
"How likely would it be that a nationalist amendment would succeed?"
Every chance, unless Labour and the Lib Dems reverse their position, and vote against an amendment they voted in favour of today. The chain of command is exactly the same in the Lords as in the Commons - most working peers follow the party whip.
"The Scottish parliament is not in danger of being abolished."
Do you mean no imminent danger? Of course it isn't, but that's not the point. The objective is to prevent abolition without permission in the distant future, if Scotland is unlucky enough to remain in the UK. None of us can possibly know what a future Westminster government might look like. The GLC probably didn't seem in much danger of abolition in 1974.
'I've described the upside in the blogpost, and it's hardly a superficial one - it could make all the difference to the powers the Scottish Parliament ends up with as a result of this process.'
DeleteThe SNP amendment to increase the powers proposed for the Scottish parliament was defeated in today by 56 to 300. What difference would our Lord make, could he reverse that?
'The same right as any other Lord.'
I had a specific question with regard to the rules of the H of L that I didn't know the answer to. Anyway, would those rules allow a single nationalist Lord or half a dozen even to table an amendment to a bill in the house of Lords bearing in mind that the government bill passed and the amendment tabled by the SNP failed. How could our lord change that?
We have 56 Mp's out of 600 and we will lose votes, we sell our principles for one or two SNP lords out of 900 unionists and expect better results?
GLC, fair enough despite the obvious differences. If our parliament is dissolved it would HASTEN independence. I can’t see it happening but there’s nothing more certain about what would happen if it did, in my mind anyway.
Next year the Scottish parliament elections will return a clear majority of votes for Independence supporting parties. The movement is strong just now. We go down the Lords route we fracture the movement because we start to sell our principles in order to try and achieve our goals. Joining the Lords will weaken it and for what? It is not clear what having representation there could achieve if anything other than to say we are represented in a house we have no respect for.
Next year the Scottish parliament elections will return a clear majority of votes for Independence supporting parties. The movement is strong just now. We go down the Lords route we fracture the movement because we start to sell our principles in order to try and achieve our goals. Joining the Lords will weaken it and for what? It is not clear what having representation there could achieve if anything other than to say we are represented in a discredited house that will oppose the Scottish Independence movement at every turn.
Fuck the Lords, there is nothing in it for us other than superficial logic and the massive downside. Get the Central bank finished and do all the ground work for our own currency now. The punters will take care of the rest with their votes next year
"The SNP amendment to increase the powers proposed for the Scottish parliament was defeated in today by 56 to 300. What difference would our Lord make, could he reverse that?"
DeleteHe can table the same (or similar) amendment. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this.
"Anyway, would those rules allow a single nationalist Lord or half a dozen even to table an amendment to a bill in the house of Lords bearing in mind that the government bill passed and the amendment tabled by the SNP failed. How could our lord change that?"
By tabling the amendment and inviting Labour and the Lib Dems to vote in exactly the same way that they voted last night. That's all that would have to happen - the Tories are well short of a majority in the Lords.
"We go down the Lords route we fracture the movement"
I don't know whether to laugh or cry when people say things like that. It's like Sinn Fein members obsessing over the oath of allegiance to the Queen, which at the end of the day is objectionable but not particularly important.
"It is not clear what having representation there could achieve"
I've given you a clear-cut example of what it could achieve.
The SNP must never take part in the HoL. Goodbye to this member if they do.
ReplyDeleteLook at this longer term. These - expected - intransigent colonial attitudes strengthen the UDI case. We try democracy, we are rebuffed. We vote overwhelmingly for something, we are rebuffed. What exactly is it a "people" can do.
ReplyDeleteThey are hastening Independence day.
And what value will be placed on "vows" the next time?
I'm happy to look at things in the longer-term, but not with a view to UDI. That would be an absolute last resort - the only way I could see it happening would be if the SNP were elected on a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum, and Westminster succeeded in blocking it. Even then, I would imagine that the SNP would first seek an unambiguous mandate for independence in a fresh Holyrood election.
DeleteI am not a fan of entering the house of lords - it has an element of 'four legs bad, two legs good' to it. Far better for the SNP to campaign to abolish it, or at very least make it an elected upper chamber.
ReplyDeleteIt's perfectly possible to take seats and still campaign for abolition/reform. We take seats in the Commons, but still campaign for Scotland not to be represented there.
DeleteI'd have to be convinced there was a huge benefit to be gained and I really don't see it. How many lords would the SNP acquire? One or two? Who would these people actually be? Who wants to do it?
ReplyDeleteAll our top politicians seem to me to be actively engaged elsewhere. Some years ago Winnie would have been a shoo-in, but I don't know who we have now of that calibre and status. You know, there's an argument that anyone who wants to be an SNP lord should on no account be allowed near the place!
How many lords are needed to make an impact? We have 56 MPs out of 600-odd and are constantly voted down. How could we avoid the same thing happening to half a dozen lords?
"How many lords would the SNP acquire? One or two?"
DeleteI think the rule of thumb in recent years has been to gradually attempt to bring the composition of the Lords into line with the popular vote, which would eventually entitle the SNP to well over 30 seats. But in this instance, I'm not even talking about the possibility that the SNP could hold the balance of power in the Lords - I'm talking about the downsides of not having any representation at all. Not being able to table amendments, with exactly the wording they want, and instead having to hope that someone else will table something they agree with.
"We have 56 MPs out of 600-odd and are constantly voted down."
The simple answer is that the Tories have an absolute majority in the Commons, but are light-years short of a majority in the Lords.
But in this instance, I'm not even talking about the possibility that the SNP could hold the balance of power in the Lords - I'm talking about the downsides of not having any representation at all. Not being able to table amendments, with exactly the wording they want, and instead having to hope that someone else will table something they agree with.
DeleteWouldn't we still be "having to hope" that SNP peers would table amendments with the wording we want? What sanction could the party or electorate wield to compel them?
Some posts on here make it sound like opposition to taking seats in the HoL is just about occupying the high moral ground for the sake of it. But the clear practical problem with peers is that they're entirely at liberty to vote as they like. We're reduced to hoping that our legislators will act in our interests because whomever nominated them thought they had a kind face.
This is getting silly, Keaton. Party whips operate in the Lords, just as they do in the Commons. There is no guarantee of every member following the instruction of the whip in either chamber. Bogus objection.
DeleteIn the Commons, the party can threaten the member with withdrawal of the whip, which in most cases would remove any chance of re-election. I'm not sure what recourse the whips have in the Lords other than a stern talking-to.
Delete"I'm not sure what recourse the whips have in the Lords other than a stern talking-to."
DeleteWhich is exactly the same recourse the whips would have in respect of an MP who is retiring at the next election. According to your logic, such a person is totally out of control and is barely even an SNP MP at all.
It just doesn't make sense - you seem to be starting from the assumption that it can't work, and then scrabbling around for reasons why that is the case, no matter how contrived.
The HoL is the political wing of the Establishment, by taking their unelected perpetual sinecures the SNP would gain very little political leverage while establishing a bridgehead for the Establishment within the Party.
ReplyDeleteThe Establishment are so desperate for influence within Scotland that they may be persuaded to allocate 90 seats in the HoL to be allocated for the parliament's 5 year term and distributed to Scottish parties on a pro rata bases to the votes gained in the general election. In this case the SNP could hardly refuse.
Yes they can refuse.
DeleteOne of the reasons i joined the SNP was their pricipled stand on many issues, one of them being their refusal to take seats in the HoL. Taking seats in that icon of privelage and cap doffing is the start of the slippery slope to becoming part of the Westminster establishment. Look at what happened to the Labour Party ffs!
I don't really know how to react to that kind of fundilymundily-entalism, Juteman. The SNP can never pragmatically compromise on anything at all without losing you as a member? That makes me wonder why you didn't leave after the U-turn on NATO membership, for example?
DeleteJuteman, you mid the point! Representation in the HoL proportional representation is just the democratic model the SNP can't refuse.
DeleteJuteman, you mid the point! Representation in the HoL proportional representation is just the democratic model the SNP can't refuse.
DeleteWhat if the SNP 'Lords' donated the money to charity?
DeleteMP's get paid £74,000 a year, which is pretty obscene in my book, if you are going to have a go at the lords, then at least see the House of Commons for what it is, a house of privilege and entitlement, the lords is just the 'checks and balances' part of it....which we aren't a part of..both houses are completely obscene, antiquated but I'll point out that only one SNP MP is donating his surplus wage over the national average to charity.....it's still one more than everyone else like, but still, glasshouses and all that....£74k per year is close to £300 per day as well...yet no one is against that salary? Including the very SNP MP's who campaigned on an anti-austerity mandate? I find it a bit hypocritical for the same anti-lords brigade to decry that yet not MP's? That doesn't even include expenses.
And yes, for the record, I'd have liked to have seen SNP MP's donate wages to food banks or another charity in their constituencies.
Anyway, bit off topic, but I felt it is worthy of inclusion in this debate
@ James.
DeleteI don't want to be in Nato, but can accept most things in the short term, if it will get us across the finishing line. The HoL is a red line for me though, as i hate all that it represents.
James,
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the HoL thing is much more about the SNP's credibility than anything else.
SNP now have more than 110,000 Members - 85,000 of them since the Referendum.
Most of these new Members, myself included, joined not only because we felt that SNP were best placed to speak for Scotland above all else, but because they offered an alternative to the British Political Establishment - an Establishment exactly typified by an elite and undemocratic institution, like the HoL.
Any marginal - and it would be - benefit which the SNP might gain by taking seats in that truly bloated House, would surely be completely outweighed by the loss of trust, respect and credibility it would suffer up here among its own electorate.
I honestly believe that it would be the beginning of the end of the SNP "difference" if its MPs ever inhabited the red benches - and would directly lead to a reduction in their powerbase in Scotland.
With the bigger prize in mind, we surely cannot have that happen.
I really struggle to understand that argument. Where is the lost of trust? Is it from taking salaries in the Lords, or what?
DeleteBecause they have opposed, ridiculed, despised and called for its complete abolition for years.
DeleteYou simply cannot treat something as complete and utter anathema - and then join it.
Not if you wish to retain credibility with the voters who agreed with your previous, concrete stance.
But the House of Commons is OK to be a part of?
DeleteHave you missed the 50 or so years of saying it's unfit for business in Scotland etc?
"Because they have opposed, ridiculed, despised and called for its complete abolition for years."
DeleteThey opposed NATO membership for years, and then reversed their position. Come to think of it, if you go back far enough they opposed Common Market membership, and campaigned for a No vote in 1975.
But the House of Commons is OK to be a part of?
DeleteHave you missed the 50 or so years of saying it's unfit for business in Scotland etc?
The SNP don't believe that the House of Commons as presently constituted should exist. But they do recognise the right of individual MPs to represent and vote on behalf of the constituents who have elected them. Peers, however, are rightly considered to be completely without legitimacy.
I do not ever recall the SNP either wishing to abolish the elected HoC or saying that they would not take their seats in that place - as long as Scotland remained part of the UK.
ReplyDeleteDifferent stance completely, from that on the HoL.
The House of Lords is a part of the decision-making process that affects Scotland.
DeleteIt could be argued, in fact it is, that we have no influence on the House of Commons and things that affect certain things, so why are we there?
Because we were Elected to it, by the Scottish public, in the GE.
ReplyDeleteThere is no election to the Lords
There is no election, no, but it exists in order to provide checks and balances to laws passed, which ultimately can affect Scotland.
DeleteNot being in it because it's not elected people is something we can get round by actually electing our people, we could make a mockery of it and show it up for what it is!
I don't like the fact it's not an elected chamber, but it shouldn't stop us from being in it and making sure things like them repealing our renewable energy legislation doesn't happen.
I'd also imagine a fair few of the older tory lot would actually like Scotland to have FFA, so we are missing a trick by not being in there and winding them up about it.
Not being in it because it's not elected people is something we can get round by actually electing our people, we could make a mockery of it and show it up for what it is!
DeleteHow would this work? Are you suggesting the SNP bankrolls a national election? Or do you mean it would be an intra-party election, which would barely confer any more legitimacy than the current system? And how do we force an incumbent Lord who has lost an election to stand down?
James,
ReplyDeleteIn my lifetime, the SNP have been both for and against NATO and for Partnership for Peace, which is a Nato organisation.
They have always, though, been consistent in their determination to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons and are still standing by that commitment.
I have never, to my knowledge, seen the SNP support an unelected HoL.
Which is completely irrelevant to the point. I'm not suggesting the SNP drop their opposition to the House of Lords.
Delete"In my lifetime, the SNP have been both for and against NATO"
Precisely - they've changed their position.
Of course my points are as relevant as yours.
ReplyDeleteMy view is that it would do the SNP more harm than good to sit in the HoL.
Your point seems to be that it would not.
I am certainly not against a bit of political pragmatism, but have yet to be convinced that this particular piece, would not be far more detrimental than beneficial, to the SNP..
"Of course my points are as relevant as yours."
DeleteSigh. Your statement that "I have never, to my knowledge, seen the SNP support an unelected HoL" was indeed irrelevant, because nobody is suggesting that the SNP should start supporting an unelected Lords. Your clear implication was that I think they should. That's nonsense. It's perfectly possible to pragmatically take seats in the Lords while still campaigning for its abolition.
The SNP membership now is probably made up from mostly ex Labour folk. These folk left Labour because they had forgotten who they were.
ReplyDeleteDo you really think that becoming part of the 'aristocracy' will go down well with most members?
You'll be accusing me of wanting them to join the monarchy next. My honest view is that the public wouldn't give a monkey's if the SNP took up seats in the Lords.
DeleteSorry James, i think you are totally mis-reading the mood of the country.
DeleteAnd I think you're totally misreading the mood of the country. One of us is right, and one of us is wrong. Short of commissioning an opinion poll, there's not much more to say.
DeleteLabour didnt have 90000 members before September 18th. So that might be a bit of a leap there. I was always an SNP sympathiser, but felt that after the 19th I had to join. Sympathy is not enough. I was Labour at University, but only voted for them once. I suspect all you can say about SNP members is that a lot of them have voted SNP before.
DeleteLabour has been the problem in Scotland for a very long time. From post war nationalising and centralising control in England of Scots businesses, to their directing of for instance Steel mill's to their own inland constituencies. Right up to the dodgy land deals their favoured contractors did in the Commonwealth Games. First and foremost they have for a long time now,looked after their own powerbase at the expense of Scotland. I hope we can be rid of the carpetbagging self centred bunch permanently before long.
Don't know if you are right on that assumption.
ReplyDeleteI have been an SNP voter for years, but just was never "political enough" to join a Party.
Most other newbies I have met are the same.
But I agree with your bigger point.
James,
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned Nato and I was merely drawing attention to the difference in fluctuating stances between supporting that organisation and the solid stance against the HoL.
So, it was relevant to your previous comment.
No, it wasn't. It was completely irrelevant because I am not suggesting that the SNP should reverse their opposition to the House of Lords, and to the best of my knowledge neither is anybody else.
DeleteOk mate, have it your own way.
ReplyDeleteAs you said to Juteman, there is no real point in flogging this any longer.
Cheers.
I admire your tenacity, raising this Lords business yet again, but I think it is a daft idea.
ReplyDeleteLet's get real about the Scotland bill, it is pointless, and an irrelevancy - as is Smith. The SNP are going through the motions, so they can show such avenues have been exhausted - a means to an end. The amendment you mention, would never be allowed to stand, no matter whether the SNP were in the lords or not, and, besides, it is merely a notional amendment - until the Scottish parliament is not a parliament devolved from Westminster, saying it is permanent, is just nice semantics - as has already been pointed out.
Most of the votes on the Scotland bill, are political games between the three main parties, each vying to gain some leverage and sound bites from one vote or another, but ONE single fact is true, and that is, not one new power for the Scottish parliament will be gained, unless the ruling Tory Government want it to happen. It really is that simple. Nothing, and I really do mean nothing, of substance will come of it. Had their been a hung parliament, the story may have been different, but it simply isn't so.
The only benefit of the current Scotland bill, is that at the end, when little in the way of new powers have been achieved, the SNP can say, 'we took the unionist promises at their word, and they lied, time for indy ref 2'.
As to the house of lords, honestly, I think you seriously misjudge how membership of the SNP think - I've been in the SNP a long time, and this has been raised by somebody before, but has been shot down quickly.
As to your point above, that the public wouldn't care if the SNP joined the Lords, I'm not sure that is true, but in any case, more importantly, the SNP joining the Lords would allow the unionist media to correctly label the SNP as hypocrites (since they have opposed it from day one), and of 'joining the gravy train'. It really, really is a complete non starter.
Like Juteman, and many others I know, this principled stance against the Lords is very important, so were the SNP to join the lords, then I would of course also leave the party. Why? because it is step one of a slippery slope which the Labour party undertook man years ago, a wee compromise here, a wee compromise there, until you arrive in 2015, with a Labour party which wouldn't know how to spell principles, never mind describe one.
I do not doubt for one second that Westminster would love the SNP to join the lords, and THAT single fact, tells us all why it shouldn't be done. Ever.
Remember our goal is to leave Westminster ASAP, not to become even more entrenched in it.
With all due respect, that's a fundamentalist argument. The SNP leadership are not fundamentalists - they don't regard the Scotland Bill as pointless, and they're not going through the motions over it. They're serious about banking a large number of powers and moving forward from there.
DeleteThey do, admittedly, agree with you and Juteman on the question of taking up seats in the Lords. I find that very hard to understand. It certainly doesn't tally up with the stated principle of "Scotland's voice must be heard at Westminster for as long as it is part of the Westminster system".
Hmmm. Having principles by which you stand, is now 'fundamentalism' according to you. Does that logic apply to any kind of political argument, or just the SNP joining the Lords?
DeleteThe SNP have always stated they will take any new powers they can get, but that does not however, imply those powers will necessarily be meaningful.
Take a look at the Scotland bill, and you will see, as with the response to Calman, that any supposed 'powers' are a joke. Of course the SNP will take whatever it manages to get, but NO new substantive powers will be in the Scotland bill that the current Tory Government does not already want Scotland to have.
The situation would have been very, very different had their been a hung parliament, but there isn't, as Nicola Sturgeon herself conceded.
The current Scotland bill is a proverbial joke, as was the Smith commission, neither of which met the promises made prior to the referendum. In fact you could say, the current Scotland bill is just a truly sick joke, and 56 SNP MP's will make absolutely zero difference to its substance.
The end result will be a clear demonstrable breach of promise and good faith by Westminster, leading to another demand and mandate from Scotland for an independence referendum.
On another point, I grew up in the full knowledge that a majority of Scottish MP's from the SNP would mean Scottish independence, a point conceded by no less than the conservative Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. I find it hard to believe that we now run the Scottish Government, and have almost every single MP seat in Scotland, yet are merely begging for scraps from Westminster.
Westminster will give Scotland nothing, unless the metaphorical gun of a referendum is pointed at it. That much is clear.
I too grew up voting when a majority of SNP MP's meant independence.
DeleteHow did we get to this situation where we have almost every seat yet get nothing?
"Having principles by which you stand, is now 'fundamentalism' according to you."
DeleteNope. The fundamentalism I was referring to was your independence-or-nothing attitude.
Juteman,
ReplyDeleteYou raise an interesting question. In the run up to the GE, I cannot find anybody, aside from the SNP, suggesting that if the SNP have a majority of the seats it will NOT mean independence. The tories never said it, and nor did Labour. It would seem the only people who decided a majority of SNP MP's at Westminster does not lead to independence was the SNP. Which is odd.
James,
I don't want to keep going on this, but I am very much in favour of getting more powers, if indy isn't possible. That is, I am not 'indy or nothing' as you suggest. The point I was making however, is an important one, in that the current Scotland bill offers little of genuine substance, and by the time it gets a second reading will be worth even less. It is Calman-lite 2.0. Had their been a hung parliament matters would have been very different.
If we could get devo max tomorrow, I'd take it instead of indy, but it isn't about to happen.
I do think the loosening of principles is a slippery slope, as I pointed out had happened to Labour, who now seem to stand for nothing and support nobody. The house of lords is an expensive undemocratic distraction for the SNP.