JACOB Rees-Mogg's decision to scrap the virtual UK Parliament in favour of sitting physically has caused much outrage from politicians being forced to travel back to London during the coronavirus pandemic.
And Jamie Stone, MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, has received much praise online today for calling out Rees-Mogg on his "poxy stubbornness" after he explained that as a carer to his wife, he was being made to choose between crossing the Border to attend parliament and risking the health of his family.
The LibDem MP said he would be standing by his duties "as a husband and a family man".
I’m a carer for my wife. You’re asking me to choose between the health of my family and abiding by your poxy stubbornness.
— Jamie Stone MP (@Jamie4North) June 1, 2020
I choose to fulfill my duties as a husband and family man. https://t.co/oU5nPCJdzh
Twitter users applauded Stone for his decision, with one pointing out that Dominic Cummings' defence of acting in the best interests of his own family was widely accepted by the Conservative Government.
Rees-Mogg's decision to call MPs back to Westminster has caused much controversy, with fears being voiced by SNP, LibDem and Labour politicians.
Many have pointed out the potential risk of spreading Covid-19 and a lack of representation for constituents if their MP cannot return due to issues such as health reasons.
SNP MP Owen Thompson wrote to Rees-Mogg to warn that the move could limit Scottish MPs from attending parliament, leading to a breach of the Treaty of Union.
He said: “The rush to cut off the hybrid parliament is cutting off participation for Scottish MPs who cannot safely travel to speak and vote in the limited space of the chamber.
“I believe this stands in breach of the Treaty of the Union which requires adequate representation for Scotland, and I urge the UK Government to think again.”
Speaker of the House Sir Lindsay Hoyle has also warned of the dangers of pushing MPs back to the House of Commons too soon, saying: “The fact is I’m very worried about somebody coming in who may be infected and before we know it, that has been passed around.”
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