Evel that PM does will live after him

Politicians in Scotland are entirely correct to be cynical about David Cameron’s English Votes for English Laws (Evel) proposals (your report, 25 April). His position is entirely designed to maximise the chance that the Conservative Party will hold on to power, and has nothing to do with protecting the interests of the United Kingdom.

Whilst I am cynical about Mr Cameron’s motives, I am rather bemused by Nicola Sturgeon’s response for three key reasons.

Firstly, whilst her claim that English spending decisions have an impact on the Scottish block grant is ­correct, it does overlook one key fact. Up until January this year Scottish Nationalist MPs did not vote on issues not directly relating to Scotland – typically SNP MPs take part in less than half of Westminster votes. Furthermore, despite all the misleading rhetoric from the SNP government now on the dire consequences for Scotland, when asked it declined to comment on the Bill which paved the way for the creeping privatisation of the NHS in England – that was left to the mercy of Westminster.

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Secondly, Ms Sturgeon claims that David Cameron’s Evel plans are in contravention of the Smith Commission proposals look rather hypocritical when one considers the fact that the ­Nationalists have themselves done everything they can to undermine them. Indeed, John Swinney, despite being part of the Smith Commission, attacked the proposals he signed up to just as soon as they were published. ­Furthermore, the Full Fiscal Autonomy the SNP proposes will end the Smith Commission process and the Barnett Formula with it. 

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the reason that David Cameron has been able to make his argument so effectively is largely due to Sturgeon and Alex Salmond. Both have repeatedly asserted that they will be controlling Labour after the general election.

Just a few days ago, Salmond was secretly filmed claiming he would be writing Labour’s budget for them.

These SNP arguments, which are being amplified by the Tories and the Murdoch press, are designed to drive voters away from ­Labour north and south of the ­Border. 

When considering these three points together, the only conclusion I can draw is that Nicola Sturgeon should look in the mirror if she is genuinely concerned about David Cameron’s Evel plans.

(Dr) Scott Arthur

Buckstone Gardens


THE furore over David ­Cameron’s suggestions seems misplaced.

The Scottish Nationalists want to separate the UK into two groups A and B, and say that if legislation affects only group A then only group A should vote on it. 

Up until now there’s been no voting division between A and B. However, “Fair enough” says group B, “But in that case if legislation affects only group B then only group B votes on it.”

“Object!” says group A, ­illogically.

If the UK is to be no longer a unitary state, how much better if it were organised into a federation of smaller states like Germany or the US, two of the most ­successful of modern nations, with a properly organised structure.

Former First Minister Alex Salmond’s or current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s ambition should be to become chancellor or president or whatever of a federal ­Britain instead of absolute monarch of the local mini-state.

Not that they could achieve it, as their success has been based on sowing dissension between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Ian Craddock

West Ferryfield