I WATCHED some of the Scotland Bill debate in the House of Commons this week, and was greatly impressed by the performance of some of the newly-elected SNP members, most of whom I confess I had never heard of before the May election.
They spoke confidently, some without any notes, made their points clearly, and did not appear in any way overawed by their new surroundings and situation.
I'm afraid I cannot say the same about the performance of our Secretary of State for Scotland ("Tories accused of failing to deliver extra welfare powers", The Herald, July 1). David Mundell was okay when, head down, he was reading the written statements presumably prepared for him by his officials, but his response to questions was laboured and unimpressive. He has an irritating habit of umming and aahing constantly while searching for the next word, and he seldom made any effort to reply properly to the question asked. I hope those in the public gallery and television viewers do not think that this is the best Scotland can produce for such an important Government position. Ruth Davidson and most of the Conservative MPs at Holyrood would do a much better job.
However Mr Mundell's masters in Downing Street and the Treasury are no doubt very pleased with him, as he refused to make a single concession on any of the amendments being debated. And when put to the vote, hordes of Conservative MPs emerged from the bars and dining rooms to troop through the lobbies and win the day, despite never more than half a dozen of them being present in the chamber at any one time during the debate. This is what passes for modern parliamentary democracy in the UK.
And incidentally the system of voting is unbelievably antiquated and antediluvian, with everyone trooping of to file through lobbies to have their names ticked off on a sheet, this process taking up 15 or 20minutes that could otherwise be used for debating. Surely in these days of instant communication a better method could be found, especially since those in the chamber seem to spend much of their time texting on mobile phones or on iPads?
Iain A D Mann,
7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.
I WONDER how many of those who voted No in the referendum appreciate the irony of the proceedings from Westminster on deliberations of the Scotland Bill being lorded over by Scotland's lone Conservative MP? His replies to various amendments are designed to give the impression that he is one of the great political thinkers of our time.
Is this the same MP who was not even trusted by the coalition to be Secretary of State for Scotland and was subordinate to a Liberal Democrat? The reality is even more depressing as several Conservative Party members of my acquaintance have admitted that fortune had not smiled on them when David Mundell was re-elected as their only representative in Scotland. As one succinctly commented, he will fail to comprehend or even consider the consequences of his self-important utterances and will further the cause of independence as no other MP could.
I wonder how any Scots voted for this version of better together?
David Stubley,
22 Templeton Crescent, Prestwick.
IF anyone in Scotland has ever struggled to understand the West Lothian question they need only look at the amendments to the Scotland Bill. Repeatedly, the overwhelming majority of Scotland's elected MPs voted for amendments which were rejected under a tsunami of English MPs' votes. And yet David Cameron is concerned about the possible impact of the 59 Scottish MPs on votes on English matters. Strangely, the utter inability of Scotland's MPs even were all 59 to vote for something to outvote even the MPs from London and the south-east off England seems to concern him not at all.
Professor William G Naphy,
1 Calsayseat Road,
Aberdeen.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article