Reply With QuoteJurys out for me....I cannot make head nor tail of the " amendments" I would like some one to show me where exactly it states powers of veto, or language to that intent..Originally Posted by BetterTogether
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
To claim that there is a power of veto with the Scotland Bill is disingenuous at best or just making light with the truth. Read the bill the Scottish Government has the powers, Squidge seems intent on using incorrect terminology to prove a point. It's the usual SNP ruse of claiming of naming something as they wish to view it to suit their political ends rather than admitting they have the powers and can't actually use them for fear of loosing voters.
As I posted a link to the Scotland Bill earlier maybe Squidge would like to directly quote the part where it states there are powers of veto. That should be easy enough to do as she claims its in the Bill or else I shall have to work on the premise that there is no veto and she is playing political games with the truth.
1K.Orger
Jurys out for me....I cannot make head nor tail of the " amendments" I would like some one to show me where exactly it states powers of veto, or language to that intent..
Last edited by rob murray; 15-Jun-15 at 13:28.
1K.Orger
Ive googled a bit and have found that Westmister has seemingly retained vetoes on universal credits, fuel poverty support schemes and obligations on suppliers to reduce carbon emissions and home heating costs. Effectively controlling welfae expenditure ??
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
It's presented as a veto by the SNP but if you read the act itself it's not a veto.
1K.Orger
Can you post the url of what you are refering to please ? Or copy n paste and reply to me so I can see for myself
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
Surely here you go.
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/.../scotland.html
The part they are referring to is where it says " there is a duty to consult " but that does not stop them actually implementing changes
1K.Orger
FRom the site you gave me : In its May 2015 report on the draft clauses and associated Command Paper Scotland and the United Kingdom: an enduring settlement, the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee questioned whether some of the welfare clauses met the “spirit and substance” of the Smith Commission’s recommendations and posed potential challenges to implementing them. A key concern was that the powers to create new benefits in areas of devolved responsibility and to make discretionary payments in any area of welfare were narrowly defined.
With the exception of a new power to top-up reserved benefits, there are no substantive differences between the welfare and employment support provisions in the Scotland Bill and the previous draft clauses.....which I take it the SNP accepted when they siged up to the smith commission ???
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
You're quite correct in your assumptions.
What the SNP seem to want from the smith Commision is the ability to tinker at will with every power without any form of consultation with the UK Govt. The consultation in fact does not specifically stop the Scottish Government from implementing any changes.
It does take a bit of rummaging through to be fair but it's all in there to read and digest admittedly not the most exciting read you'll ever have, but if you're interested in the topic why leave it for others to report and interpret it for you.
Last edited by BetterTogether; 15-Jun-15 at 14:07.
1K.Orger
Sorry IM lost, cant find it, ie there is a duty to consult " can you copy it from the url and paste it please then its perfectly clear for all to see.
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
It's a bit difficult as its a PDF which makes copying and pasting a pain
1K.Orger
Ok theres 2 pdf's : which one is it ? and can you give me the page where it says what youve pointed out, please, much appreciated
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0003/16003.pdf
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07077/SN07077.pdf
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
It's on page 30 if that makes life easier
http://www.publications.parliament.u...0003/16003.pdf
Thought my days of having to speed read where long over !
Section 4 (b)
It finishes with...such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld .
Last edited by BetterTogether; 15-Jun-15 at 14:23.
1K.Orger
Cheers it took me to below : does this relate to the bedroom tax ? Also..."unreasonably withheld"....very subjective dont you think ok it doesnt specifically say that the westminster government has powers of veto, but unreasonable...who defines unreasonable and on what basis ?
Universal credit:costs of claimants who rent accommodation
(4) The ScottishMinisters may not exercise the function of making regulations to
which this sectionapplies unless—
(a) they haveconsulted the Secretary of State about the practicability of
implementing theregulations, and
(b) the Secretaryof State has given his or her agreement as to when any
change made by theregulations is to start to have effect,such
agreement not to beunreasonably withheld.
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
It means the Scottish Government is duty bound to consult with the UK Govt but when push comes to shove the UK Govt cannot without very good reason withold change from going through.
Yes it's subjective but all legislation is written in language that makes it workable for both sides.
There are similar parts throughout the document but as you can now see there is no veto in the whole document.
You can argue what unreasonably with held means but it is weighted in favour of the Scottish Government
Last edited by BetterTogether; 15-Jun-15 at 14:43.
1K.Orger
Your right the word "veto", doesnt appear but does it ever in legisalation, I would imagine words such as " cannot enact x y z without the expressed consent of the Sec of Stat or whoever or cannot enact x y z without gaining majority etc etc : veto ,is again a very subjective word, I think the correct wording used in this context should apply to.. "a bill. that seemingly, could have in parts, the potential to "curtail" activities deemed important enough to be fully within the control of an elected Scottish government". Legislation is written in legal format, and challenging words such as "unreasonable" have made lawyers over the years very rich people. As I remember it the english language lacks mathematical precision and hence is very open to many differing meanings....and I suggest that " not to be unreasonably withheld" can be seen as having many meanings.
1K.Orger
Squidge, to summarise the postings made today : Ive asked clarification of where exactly the word "veto" appears in legisalation, what I have seen is, the term........... such
agreement not to be unreasonably withheld, is this the issue ? ie the interpretation of unreasonably withheld being seen as a potential "veto" ?
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
I think for terms of ease of understanding that anything written by UK Govt with any caveat regardless of how reasonable it would appear as unreasonable to those within the SNP.
Anything but full control/ power is unacceptable to them so how can two sides be seen to work together constructively when one side it intent on holding all the power and decision making.
I'm sure neither you no I or anyone else on this forum would enter any agreement that stated that the other side was allowed to make any changes it wanted with no regard to the other side but still expect them to be ultimately financially responsible for those decisions.
That for most people would constitute the very epitome of unreasonable behaviour but it seems this is exactly what the SNP are trying to get.
Let us spend what we want, how we want, whenever we want and if we can't afford it. Well you can pay for our mistakes.
Last edited by BetterTogether; 15-Jun-15 at 16:30.
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
I very much doubt considering Squidges previous comments whether she has actually taken time to read the Scotland Bill and its various amendments, judging by her earlier comments on this thread. If I'm wrong I will apologise in advance.
1K.Orger
Better re consider your post ! Squidge is on the ball re complexities of FFA / disentaglement, so I wouldnt assume that she is not up to speed ( unlike me prior to this thread ) on the Scotland bill.
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
Re my previous post I based it on this statement so we don't confused, I'd of thought you'd be throughly aware that the Scotland Bill and all its amendments are available to view online. Ah the joys of living in a 21st century fully westernised prosperous democratic country.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks