Yes. The Lords does not create legislation, it is a revising chamber. I think it has performed that task extremely well, all the better for being free of the short-termism and narrow partisanship which is an inevitable part of being in an electoral cycle. It doesn't write law so it does not need to be elected. It is meant only to exert a moderating influence and sound the voice of reason. Every party I have yet heard proposing abolition or sweeping changes to the Lords would seem to be motivated by securing party political advantage or exercising ideological grievance. That fact that this is so is the very reason why the upper house exists in the first place and why it should remain. It does need reform to end party political nepotism and ensure that its members are experts in their fields who hold their seats on merit - it should not be a golden retirement home for party loyalists - but not if that means creating another layer of pointless and expensive electoral bureaucracy or discarding something that works for the sake of being modish. We don't need two Parliaments each duplicating the work of the other and both competing against one another. And for precisely that reason we don't need the European Parliament, the European Commission or the Council of Europe competing against and subordinating our sovereign Parliament, whoever sits in it. And while Ukip remain the only party in the UK committed to an unconditional referendum and an early and orderly withdrawal from the EU they will remain part of the political landscape and they will form part of the political conversation whether those from the other end of the political spectrum like it or not. That's democracy. And no Fin I wasn't grumpy this morning but the hypocrisy of Mr Salmond's presuming to lecture England on its constitutional future was dazzling.
said it several times on here before i like the idea of a second house also, take some of the short term bull that goes on out of the equation just for starters. guess now that he is standing as a candidate for westminster gives him that right to comment on constitutional change within it. you know the U.K parliament not the english parliament. and as that decision will be made by a U.K parliament he has a right to put forward his ideas,probably playing to his potential constituency that he has chosen to represent but that is his job. apart from his euro stance, i dont understand your apparent hatred for his views or the man. is it the fact the snp dont vote on english matters or is it the accent? or the fact he doesn't use words like bongo bongo land or poofter ? just don't get it.
In the news item you gave at the start of the thread he was referring specifically to England and England's constitutional future, and lecturing the English on how we should be governing ourselves. He was not talking about the UK. He wouldn't. He doesn't support the UK. He wants out of it. During the referendum campaign he curled his lip at every English voice, political media or otherwise, who expressed any opinion however slight, about his vision for an independent Scotland. And then having lost that referendum he turns round and presumes to lecture us. What kind of response does he expect? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I quite agree England should have its own Parliament with only English MPs sitting in it. But that is a matter for us not Mr Salmond. Nor has he the right to vet our political opinions for us to ensure they are the "correct" ones nor cherry pick which parties may take part in our political process nor tell us which parties we ought to be voting for.
You still don't get it do you? Its the hypocrisy of the man that makes me despise him. Enough. Vote how you will and I'll do likewise.
for you maybe, you can at least respect him for his convictions. so when labour lost the last election they should of disbanded and gave up. that's not how it works a classic example of disagreement leading to dysfunction. sounds familiar.
Yeah, roger... Do you really believe that? Just nip into a boozer in Glasgow, Aberdeen or anywhere in Scotland when England are playing footie or rugby and feel the 'lurve' for England. And it aint 'banter' its full blown hatred.
Highly unlikely there would be any problem at all, things have improved somewhat since the 80's regarding footie aggro. The point I was making, and I'm sure you'll be acutely aware of, during any sporting event involving England, there is an undercurrent of hatred towards England. And the opposition doesn't have to be Scotland. Here's a question for Rangers/Celtic fans...... Rangers/Celtic to win the champions league or England to win the world cup? A tough one
i only ask as one of my mates is a big chelsea fan from down there, bit of a nob in the past by the sounds of it (regarding foot ball) his misses is an arsnol fan big time, good job in I.T up here the pair of them get more than animated particularly her self. it dont sound to friendly down there come darby time. foot ball = pish.
Arsenal V Chelsea is like two elderly gentlemen having a civilised debate over a glass of port compared with Rangers V Celtic.
I watched Newcastle v Sunderland yesterday. And it would be fair to say there is a bit of 'energy' around that fixture too.
Unfortunately UKIP does attract more than it's fair share of fruitcakes whom the media are all too willing to quote when they make stupid comments. There are also a small but vocal minority within the SNP who are willing to make anti English and stupid comments whom the media is less eager to report, particularly in Scotland. However to simply dismiss the widespread support that UKIP is receiving on the grounds that it is a homophobic and racist party is, as I said before, bollocks.
Good point. Each political party contains thousands of members, and occasionally one of them makes a stupid comment, or is caught out committing some offence, etc. This is inevitable in every party, and is not really a fair criticism just of UKIP. What counts is the policies the party adopts, the way it handles problems when they arise, and the behaviour of its leading figures. So it is on that basis that UKIP is a car crash.
No one is suggesting that UKIP are a credible party of government, or even opposition, but the widespread support they are getting at a time when the two mainstream parties at Westminster struggle to get 30% of the vote they cannot be ignored, hence the vilification in the press, and by 749er, who rightly recognises them as a threat to the prospect of the SNP holding the balance of power at Westminster.
are you suggesting people will vote ukip down south as a tactic to avoid having the snp having to much influence? what motives are behind that.
