THE growing row over 'English votes for English laws' intensified last night, as the SNP and Tories accused each other of "disrespecting" the people of Scotland.
In an angry exchange of letters between Edinburgh and London, SNP MP Pete Wishart told David Cameron his "disrespectful proposals" could hasten Scottish independence, while Scottish Secretary David Mundell wrote to the First Minister accusing the SNP of disrespect by talking up a second referendum after promising to accept the outcome of the first one.
Wishart, the SNP Shadow leader of the House, said it was "difficult to think of any measure more likely to undermine the constitutional integrity and future of the Union" than Evel.
Mundell defended the plan as "sensible and pragmatic" and supported by Scotland.
Under Evel, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would be banned from voting on key stages of "English-only" issues, as defined by the Commons Speaker.
A "double majority" of MPs would be required to enact English-only laws in future - a majority of those representing English seats, then a majority of the whole House.
However, the SNP argue many apparently English-only issues could have profound knock-on effects for Scotland, especially in terms of Holyrood's budget.
There is also cross-party condemnation of the Tory plan to introduce Evel by amending Commons standing orders, rather than through primary legislation.
Not only does this limit debate and scrutiny, it also prevents any legal challenge to Evel.
The new arrangement is meant to answer the West Lothian Question - the famous side-effect of devolution which means Scots MPs can vote on some English issues but English MPs cannot vote on the equivalent Scottish ones.
Commons Leader Chris Grayling told MPs on Thursday that Evel would bring "real fairness to our constitutional arrangements".
However Nicola Sturgeon called the plan "staggering in the extent... of its hypocrisy and incoherence", and Labour said it was "reckless and an outrage".
A close vote on the issue is expected on July 15.
In his letter to Cameron, Wishart accused the Tories of making a mockery of their claims in the referendum campaign that the UK was a family of equal nations.
He wrote: "The proposals are nothing less than a constitutional outrage that will see Scottish MPs cut out of voting on matters which impact Scotland and our budget. Quite simply, they will reduce the rights of Scottish MPs to protect the interests of their constituents.
"It is difficult to think of any measure more likely to undermine the constitutional integrity and the future of the Union which you claim to support.
"We will not stand for your party's attempts to see Scotland's voice stifled and our influence reduced. The SNP will oppose these plans at Westminster - and we ask you to think again on these disrespectful proposals which are damaging to Scotland."
In his letter to Sturgeon, Mundell said the plan contained "sensible and pragmatic steps which do nothing to limit Scottish MPs' rights to represent their constituents, but which do give MPs from other parts of the UK the chance to veto proposals which only affect their constituents".
He told the First Minister: "I believe these proposals will command widespread sympathy and acceptance in Scotland.
"I was very sorry once again to hear threats of a second referendum... simply because you disagree with the UK Government implementing what is, after all, a clear manifesto commitment. We voted overwhelmingly to remain part of the UK in September. If there is any disrespect being shown to the people of Scotland, it stems from an inability to recognise and accept that decision."
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