NO matter how far you kick a can down the road you eventually catch up with it and we have caught up with the West Lothian question at an inopportune moment for the SNP ("Outrage at fast-track Evel plan, The Herald, July 3).
Having insulted England in every possible way the SNP now find their easy-going centre-right neighbour wants no input into its domestic affairs from a bunch of bellicose, leftist Celts.
Why in any case would the SNP want to interfere in English matters that are none of their concern and for whose implementation they cannot be held accountable by voters?
It was in fact Nicola Sturgeon who forced the issue when she ordered her Westminster colleagues to abandon the self-imposed ban not to vote on exclusively English issues.
She now describes English Votes for English Laws (Evel) as "staggering in the extent of its hypocrisy and incoherence", but incoherence and hypocrisy are not exactly unknown in the policies of her own party.
Rev Dr John Cameron,
10 Howard Place,
St Andrews.
AGAIN Iain AD Mann (Letters, July 2) hits the nail firmly on the head. The House of Commons is a busted flush. How can MPs who do not attend a debate then go from the bars to the voting lobbies to register their vote? What then is the point of having a debate? The Government, with its majority, might just as well say what it wants to do and have it accepted with no debate.
Looking at the attendance of MPs in the chamber it seems that it is simply not necessary to be in there, with one exception. Prime Minister's Question Time sees the chamber packed with members who are keen to display all the manners of fourth form students. Questions are rarely answered and the whole occasion is a display of the worst of the Parliamentary process.
If this is the best example of working democracy the Mother of Parliament's can offer then we would be better opting out entirely. We and they would then, simply not have to worry about Scottish MPs not being able to vote on English matters.
Dave Biggart,
Southcroft, Knockbuckle Road, Kilmacolm.
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