THE

VOW Deafening cheers as Westminster celebrates using English votes to block Scottish Home Rule Something extraordinary happened

a few days ago in the House of

Commons chamber. It wasn't the

fact that MPs voted against the ad-

dition of a new clause to the Scot-

land Bill that would have paved

the way for Full Fiscal Autono-

my. It wasn't even the fact that

they did so by 504 votes to 58 -

that was expected, because we

knew that Labour and the Tories

would both vote against. No, it

was the fact that the result was

greeted by deafening cheers -

which, by definition, came almost

exclusively from non-Scottish

MPs.

We don't yet know the exact break-

down of the figures, but it's near-

enough certain that the result

among elected Scottish MPs was

well over 50 in favour of Full Fis-

cal Autonomy, and only 3

against. Among non-Scottish

MPs, there must have been almost

500 votes against Full Fiscal Au-

tomony, and probably less than 10

in favour (the only likely possibili-

ties are the 3 Plaid Cymru MPs and

Caroline Lucas, and maybe the odd

Tory like Edward Leigh). In a nut-

shell, then, this was a straightfor-

ward battle between Scotland and

the rest of the UK - and Scotland

lost. We lost simply because there

are far more of 'them' than there

are of 'us'. The fact that this hap-

pened on an exclusively Scottish

piece of legislation, at a time when

we're constantly told that Scotland

has no business having any influ-

ence at all on English laws, is

nothing short of breathtaking.

What the hell did English Tory and

Labour MPs think they were cheer-

ing about? Did they persuade the

Scottish electorate of the case

against Full Fiscal Autono-

my? No. Did they persuade Scot-

land's elected representatives?

No. Scotland said Yes, but the

London parties said No, and they

presume to decide on our be-

half. If I'd been in their shoes, I

wouldn't have been whooping in

those circumstances, I'd have been

sheepishly looking at the floor and

hoping that someone would change

the subject as a matter of some ur-

gency. By logical deduction, it can

only be that they were consciously

cheering the fact that they'd just

overruled a democratic election

result and got away with it.

Or rather, they think they've got

away with it. Over the last few

weeks, they've been demonstrating

the case for independence more

eloquently and effectively than the

SNP ever could, but they don't

even seem to have noticed. Hell

mend them.

ISSUE 1

THE VOWISSUE 1 | THE VOWISSUE 1 | THE VOWISSUE 1 | THE VOWISSUE 1

SNP MP Pete Wishart has written to Prime Minister David Cameron calling on him to think again on proposals for English Votes for English Laws.

Under plans announced earlier this week, Scottish MPs face being un-able to vote on issues impacting Scotland including matters af-fecting Scotlands budget.

In his letter, SNP Shadow Leader of the House of Commons Pete Wishart writes:

The proposals outlined in the House of Commons on Thursday are nothing less than a constitution-al 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 con-stituents.

Your partys attempts to restrict the rights of Scottish MPs at West-minster come at the same time as you propose a totally inadequate Scotland Bill which does not live up to the recommendations of the Smith Commission and fails to un-

derstand the changing political landscape in Scotland. Last week, 58 out of Scotland's 59 MPs voted to strengthen the Scotland Bill, which means that your support is limited to one single Scottish MP, who is rejecting the views of the other 58.

And while you plan to introduce an English double majority rule to the Westminster system, the people of Scotland are being de-nied a double majority to stop Scotland being dragged out of the EU against our will. It seems your party will go to great lengths to avoid having to listen to the needs and concerns of the people of Scot-land.

Indeed, it seems hard to equate your proposals with the stated aims of your party when it comes to the constitutional integrity of the UK. It is difficult to think of any meas-ure more likely to undermine that constitutional integrity and the fu-ture of the Union which you claim to support.

During the referendum, we were repeatedly told by yourself and others campaigning for a No vote

that the UK was a family of na-tions - and each nation had equal standing in that family. In the weeks and months since the refer-endum, the UK Government has made a mockery of this.

On 7 May 2015, the people of Scotland voted in unprecedented numbers for a strong team of 56 SNP MPs to represent them at Westminster. We will not stand for your partys attempts to see Scot-lands voice stifled and our influ-ence reduced. The SNP will op-pose these plans at Westminster and we ask you to think again on these disrespectful proposals which are damaging to Scotland.

Lords amendments to Bill 'add insult to injury' Commenting on news that the Scotland Bill will face amend-ments in the House of Lords, while the UK Government ignored amendments supported by 58 of Scotlands 59 MPs, SNP spokes-person on the House of Lords Kirsty Blackman said:

It is an affront to democracy in the 21st century that there remains a legislative chamber completely unaccountable to the electorate and that this out of touch, unelect-ed group looks set to have more influence on amending the Scot-land Bill than Scotlands MPs is completely absurd.

Just last week, 58 of Scotlands 59 MPs voted for amendments to the Scotland Bill and were over-ruled by the Tory government with just a single Scottish MP the fact that the Tories now look set to take on board amendments from the unelected Lords simply adds insult to injury.

SNP demand Cameron thinks again on EVEL plans

THE VOWISSUE 1 | THE VOWISSUE 1 | THE VOWISSUE 1 | THE VOWISSUE 1

David Mundell and David Camer-on need to understand that they cannot simply bypass the demo-cratic will of people in Scot-land. They should recognise the unprecedented mandate given to the SNP at the General Election and deliver the powers that Scot-land voted for rather than demon-strating Tory arrogance in ignoring Scotlands voice while listening to the democratic absurdity of the House of Lords.

Tories vote to keep veto over Holyroods welfare powers

TORY MPs voted to keep West-minsters veto over the Scottish Parliaments new welfare powers during the debate on the Scotland Bill in the House of Commons. It was the third day of scrutiny of the Bill and the Conservative Govern-ment refused to accept any amend-ments put forward by the SNP or

Labour.

Despite cross-party consensus from just about every Scottish MP on scrapping the vetoes in the Scot-land Bill, Secretary of State for Scotland David Mundell refused to budge and claimed that no such veto existed despite the report from the Scottish Parliaments cross-party Devolution (Further Powers) Committee saying that it did.

Dr Eilidh Whiteford, the SNPs spokesperson on social justice and welfare, said Mundell was acting as if he believed the other parties were a oot o step but oor Jock.

As well as the amendment to scrap the veto, there were votes in the House of Commons debate that, if passed, would have devolved Na-tional Insurance, employment sup-port programmes and housing ben-

efit to Holyrood. All were defeat-ed. A Labour amendment to allow the Scottish Government to top up reserved benefits, and mitigate against Tory cuts, was also defeat-ed.

Speaking after the vote Whiteford told The National she was very disappointed. She added: Weve seen so little willingness from the Tory Government to listen to the democratic aspirations of the peo-ple of Scotland, and to progress when it is clear that the over-whelming majority of Scotlands elected parliamentarians recognise the need to remove the veto from the Scotland Bill to bring it line with Smith Commission recom-mendations.

The Secretary of States position seems to be Theyre aw oot o step, but Oor Jock as theres huge con-sensus from Scottish MPs that we need to put this matter beyond all doubt.

During the debate, SNP MP Pete Wishart pointed out that so far the Government had accepted no amendments and expressed con-cern that the Tories may try and make changes to the Scotland Bill in the House of Lords.

Responding for the Tories, Priti Patel, Minister for Employment, asked the SNP to give the Govern-ment the benefit of the doubt.

Tory Scottish Secretary David Mundell, who was described by North Ayrshire and Arran MP Pa-tricia Gibson as a shameless colossal governor-general, said the Bill did meet the spirit and sub-stance of the Smith Commission and the SNP amendments could be described as Smith-plus.

Earlier in the day, Deputy First Minister John Swinney wrote to Mundell to criticise him for claim-ing the two men had productive discussions over the Scotland Bill. He wrote: There will have to be clear movement by the UK Gov-ernment, otherwise it is becoming harder to justify that description.

After the debate SNP leader in the Commons, Angus Robertson, was scathing of the Conservatives: This was typical Tory arrogance a single Tory MP refusing to listen to the representatives of the people of Scotland. We saw cross-party support on the Opposition benches for SNP amendments being voted down by a Tory government with a single MP in Scotland.

THE VOWISSUE 1 | THE VOWISSUE 1 | THE VOWISSUE 1 | THE VOWISSUE 1

At a time of savage cuts to the welfare state by the Tories caus-ing real hurt to hard-working fami-lies and vulnerable people, and driving more and more people to foodbanks the choice is between having welfare powers in Scot-lands hands, or leaving them in the hands of Iain Duncan Smith and George Osborne.

Unionist Academic In Sexist Tirade Against Youngest Scottish MP A prominent female academic has described new SNP MP Mhairi Black as a "slut". The derogatory comments came from Jill Stephen-son, an historian, prominent unionist and emeritus professor at the Uni-versity of Edinburgh who goes by the twitter name @Historywoman.

The insults thrown by the historian towards Black, the youngest MP in the House of Commons, prompted the SNP to call for everyone in-volved in the debate over Scotland's political future to be "respectful at all times".

The row over Stephenson's attack on Black comes against a backdrop of widespread unionist press attention on so-called 'cybernats'. When one tweeter questioned the calibre of the SNP candidates, Stephenson said: "They aren't even the worst. Have you seen/heard the appalling harri-dan Mhairi Black? Foul mouthed little slut." In a separate thread she remarks: "If electors vote for a foul-mouthed slut like M Black, it says a lot about them, and none of it is good."

Before the referendum, Edinburgh-born Stephenson was described by one newspaper as "one of the most compelling voices in support of the Union" as an essayist, letter writer, blogger and a member of the Finan-cial Times' readers' panel.

ITS beyond doubt that the social security system needs reform. In Scotland we want to create a fairer and simpler system that does not stigmatise people who claim bene-fits, but treats them with dignity and respect.

We have pushed these as priorities and argued that the Scotland Bill needs to be strengthened to help lift people out of poverty. Our mes-sage is clear: we want to create a fairer Scotland.

But there are huge challenges ahead. The Scotland Bills pro-posals for welfare devolution cur-rently fail to deliver on the recom-mendations of the Smith Commis-sion and ignore the key recommen-dation that the Scottish Parliament should have powers to create new benefits in devolved areas.

Any serious attempt to tackle ine-quality has to focus on in-work power and powers over the mini-mum wage, employment policy and benefits which would allow us to build a coherent approach to training, education and support for people out of work or experiencing in-work poverty.

Instead, we are faced with deeper cuts which will impact on some of the most vulnerable people in our

society.

Just last week we learned that 210,000 children are living in rela-tive poverty in Scotland after hous-ing costs have been paid. Stripping back the welfare budget could be even more devastating. Equally, cutting tax credits without increas-ing earnings will impoverish more families.

The Scottish Government and groups and charities that work with people who receive benefits are united in our opposition to West-minsters proposed 12 billion cuts and we are working together to use our new powers to develop policies better suited to the people of Scot-land.

One of the worst parts of Westmin-sters changes to the welfare sys-tem is that it is being done without reference to those who rely on so-cial security. People are not being asked how they can be helped to play their full part in our society, what would help them get back into work, what their care require-ments are or what they need to live independent lives.

The Scottish Government will not follow that approach. That is why we held a discussion last week with stakeholders over the pro-posed new powers, and we will be listening to the people affected by the UK Governments welfare changes and cuts, and getting their views.

Once the UK Government con-firms whether it will deliver the full social security and employ-ment powers, and whether it will listen to the Deputy First Minis-ters proposals for additional pow-ers, we will set out how the Scot-tish Government can take a more comprehensive approach to social security and getting people into work.

Margaret Burgess, Scotlands Housing and Welfare Minister: We need to work together to create a fairer benefit system for Scotland

FROM elsewhere: The mission of The Vow is reproduce news found online and in pro-

democracy papers regarding the ongoing fight for democracy and autonomy. This is a volunteer venture which runs at a loss and is produced to inform the Scottish public on the

facts the newspapers and the press leave behind.