I AM extremely disappointed that my MP, Jo Swinson, thinks that co-sponsoring a bill on heredity peers should be one of her priorities. Does she really think the people of East Dunbartonshire see this as the first concern for their MP to be spending her valuable time on?
Even at this late stage of the Brexit process we still don’t know what the outcome will be (What exactly is Jo Swinson’s position on a no-deal Brexit? The National, February 24). Deal? No deal? Delay? Whatever your views on Brexit, there’s a lot to be getting on with at Westminster to resolve the mess this incompetent government has created for us.
Brexit is so all consuming there is very little being done at Westminster to tackle the multitude of national issues that need addressed; whether that be in-work poverty, slowing economic growth, low pensions, lack of trade deals, etc.
Is it so unreasonable to think that, with Brexit devouring so much parliamentary time, any opportunity to tackle issues that affect the lives of ordinary people should be grasped with both hands? It’s all about priorities surely.
Unfortunately, some Westminster MPs from the Tory, LibDem and Labour parties have priorities that suggest they are completely detached from what matters to their constituents. They can’t work together to resolve Brexit but they can band together at this critical time to present a bill of “great importance” to the nation.
On March 5, Tory MP Philip Davies introduced a bill “… to make provision for the succession of female heirs to heredity titles …”.
His bill is co-sponsored by, among others, East Dunbartonshire MP, Jo Swinson; her LibDem colleague in Edinburgh West, Christine Jardine; Labour’s Harriet Harman and another hardline Tory, Esther McVey.
How on Earth does sponsoring a bill to address so called “inequality” within the peerage system represent prioritising the needs of your constituents, Ms Swinson? How many constituents in East Dunbartonshire will benefit should this bill get passed into legislation?
Whatever inequalities exist within the heredity peerage system, spending valuable parliamentary time on this should not be a priority for our MPs. I feel safe in asserting that there are many other issues that are more important to the great majority of people in East Dunbartonshire.
So, on March 22, just one week before the scheduled date for Brexit, our MP, as co-sponsor, is making it a priority to get this bill through its second reading in the Commons. Am I the only one who thinks this is a shocking waste of time and a damning indictment on what Ms Swinson sees as important, especially at such a crucial time?
With this Brexit shambles engulfing us, and with so little parliamentary time given over to tackling issues that affect ordinary people, is this really what East Dunbartonshire’s MP should be spending her precious time on?
Phil McCloy
Milngavie
IN these almost surreal times at Westminster the Prime Minister is being urged again by senior Conservatives to pull again the (meaningful!) vote tomorrow, as she might lose the it as before.
In these ever increasing mad March days at Westminster, it reminds one of a poem, written by Bertolt Brecht in 1953 during the East German workers revolt, called die Lösung (the solution).
Brecht criticises the East German government and suggests pointedly that the solution to the protests would be for the “Government to dissolve the people and elect another”.
That is one answer – No 10 could in this case dissolve its own party and elect another.
The long-term trend in Westminster is built upon precedent, quirk and many unwritten procedural guidelines. This trend of pulling votes must be stopped or else the Government will become a capricious and unpredictable dictatorship, or a de facto one-party state like the East German SED.
In fact, extending the absurdity, the argument could justify any future ruling party pulling a General Election in case it loses.
That sounds an exaggeration, of course, but never have there been such chaotic and unprecedented procedures followed before as now.
Pardon the same surname, but it looks like Thomas Erskine May’s Treatise on Law, Privileges Proceedings and Usage of Parliament is being usurped by another May at present.
MayHem all round!
John Edgar
Kilmaurs
WITH reference to Kathleen Nutt’s article (SNP to demand power to call indyref2 if UK leaves the EU, The National, March 11th), I had not realised how much space travel had developed until I read your report on what David Duguid apparently said. It appears to me that he must have come from another planet and that he reportedly holds views that are alien in the extreme.
In his world, it is apparently unheard of that political elections are held (at least) every 5 years; elections to ascertain the next period of representation that politicians enact on their populace’s behalf. Should those politicians fail to realise their elector’s aspirations, at the next election the electorate have the opportunity to change their vote as a consequence of the pertaining situation.
I would hope to educate him in the ways in which our democratic human species operate.
Our society does allow that people are entitled to change their minds, especially when they find that they have been lied to or that gross mis-representation of promises made by politicians have been made. Such as in 2014: “The only way to stay in the EU is to vote No to Scottish independence.”
However, I’m not sure how even an educated alien brain can absorb new concepts!
Keith MacLeod
Broxburn
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel