homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » SNP and fox hunting (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: SNP and fox hunting
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Some background for non-UK people:

Throughout the UK fox hunting with dogs is illegal. However, the use of dogs to flush out foxes is legal - providing it's done for pest control and the fox is shot as soon as it breaks cover (so, not to start off a chase with riders in red coats).

In England and Wales, only two dogs are permitted for this purpose. In Scotland, any number of dogs may be used.

The Conservative government has put forward a bill in Westminster to relax the law in England and Wales, bringing it into line with Scotland. The government has declared it a free vote, so those Tory MPs opposed to it can vote against without the whips getting upset.

There are 59 MPs from Scotland, 56 of them SNP. By convention, SNP MPs don't vote on non-Scottish issues. And, this certainly qualifies as a non-Scottish issue - there's no way that this amendment in law will have any significant effect north of the border. However, in the news this morning the SNP are saying that they will vote against this amendment.

BBC News article

So, the question is "should the SNP vote on this issue?"

The answers given by Nicola Sturgeon why she has changed her mind are
1. that there has been considerable demand from people in England for the SNP to vote against the change, that this reflects a disconnect between Cameron and the views of the people of England which the SNP can help to redress.
2. that Holyrood will be discussing this issue soon, aiming to tighten Scottish law in line with the current 2 dog limit in England and Wales.
3. that the Conservative government has shown very little respect for Scottish MPs, ignoring amendments in the Scotland Bill and trying to rush through ill-thought through bill restricting voting rights for Scottish MPs. This amendment provides an opportunity to demonstrate how small his majority is.

So, is she right?

I find the second reason to be very poor. There are good reasons for tightening the Scottish law, and if that runs against changes in Westminster, so what? It wouldn't be the first time the Holyrood government has passed bills that are more progressive than Westminster.

I think there is something in the other two arguments. If people in England find that their MPs are not representing their interests, then is it wrong for them to appeal to other MPs to represent their interests? I don't think so, and without the additional member system we have in the Scottish government there is no option but to look to MPs for other constituencies. And, there has been some considerable arrogance shown by Cameron in trying to avoid giving further devolved powers to Holyrood and curtail the influence of Scottish MPs in Westminster. I think he needs a reminder of his small majority. However, I'm not sure this is the best issue to take that stand on. For a start because the bill may fail even without the SNP vote - which would be an even more powerful message to Cameron. Second, the forthcoming bills on welfare reform would be a much more important issue to vote on - and, given that these will affect Scotland (albeit indirectly) a vote which doesn't run against the (IMO very worthy) practice of SNP MPs abstaining on non-Scottish issues.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497

 - Posted      Profile for lowlands_boy   Email lowlands_boy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Some background for non-UK people:

Throughout the UK fox hunting with dogs is illegal. However, the use of dogs to flush out foxes is legal - providing it's done for pest control and the fox is shot as soon as it breaks cover (so, not to start off a chase with riders in red coats).

In England and Wales, only two dogs are permitted for this purpose. In Scotland, any number of dogs may be used.

The Conservative government has put forward a bill in Westminster to relax the law in England and Wales, bringing it into line with Scotland. The government has declared it a free vote, so those Tory MPs opposed to it can vote against without the whips getting upset.

There are 59 MPs from Scotland, 56 of them SNP. By convention, SNP MPs don't vote on non-Scottish issues. And, this certainly qualifies as a non-Scottish issue - there's no way that this amendment in law will have any significant effect north of the border. However, in the news this morning the SNP are saying that they will vote against this amendment.

BBC News article

So, the question is "should the SNP vote on this issue?"

The answers given by Nicola Sturgeon why she has changed her mind are
1. that there has been considerable demand from people in England for the SNP to vote against the change, that this reflects a disconnect between Cameron and the views of the people of England which the SNP can help to redress.
2. that Holyrood will be discussing this issue soon, aiming to tighten Scottish law in line with the current 2 dog limit in England and Wales.
3. that the Conservative government has shown very little respect for Scottish MPs, ignoring amendments in the Scotland Bill and trying to rush through ill-thought through bill restricting voting rights for Scottish MPs. This amendment provides an opportunity to demonstrate how small his majority is.

So, is she right?

I find the second reason to be very poor. There are good reasons for tightening the Scottish law, and if that runs against changes in Westminster, so what? It wouldn't be the first time the Holyrood government has passed bills that are more progressive than Westminster.

I think there is something in the other two arguments. If people in England find that their MPs are not representing their interests, then is it wrong for them to appeal to other MPs to represent their interests? I don't think so, and without the additional member system we have in the Scottish government there is no option but to look to MPs for other constituencies. And, there has been some considerable arrogance shown by Cameron in trying to avoid giving further devolved powers to Holyrood and curtail the influence of Scottish MPs in Westminster. I think he needs a reminder of his small majority. However, I'm not sure this is the best issue to take that stand on. For a start because the bill may fail even without the SNP vote - which would be an even more powerful message to Cameron. Second, the forthcoming bills on welfare reform would be a much more important issue to vote on - and, given that these will affect Scotland (albeit indirectly) a vote which doesn't run against the (IMO very worthy) practice of SNP MPs abstaining on non-Scottish issues.

I thought that the convention on not voting on non Scottish matters was something Sturgeon had clearly stated that the SNP would now be ignoring more - such as on health issues if it helped to protect the NHS in Scotland.

It seems the most likely conclusion is that she has figured they can gain some general popularity by voting this down, and then say "hey look, we voted on English laws and you all liked that", thus gaining legitimacy in doing so again in the future, even if the subsequent issue is one people feel they shouldn't vote on.

Cynical I know, but politics does that to people doesn't it....

--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....

Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497

 - Posted      Profile for lowlands_boy   Email lowlands_boy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, I've no idea why I did a quote of your entire post. Somewhat spurious.

--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....

Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870

 - Posted      Profile for Sipech   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It might be a moot point. After the suggestion that the SNP might vote on a matter of foxes and hounds, the Tories seem to have chickened out.

--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile

Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree. Whatever might get discussed in Holyrood in the future, it looks, and will reasonably be portrayed, like gross hypocrisy for SNP members to vote against a proposal to bring the law of England and Wales into line with the law as it currently is in Scotland.

Also
quote:
However, I'm not sure this is the best issue to take that stand on.
I agree. As issues go, internationally and objectively there could hardly be a more trivial one to choose to fight. The UK Parliament must already look stupid enough in the rest of the world for the amount of time and fatuous fervour it has wasted over the last twenty years on whether people can or can't dress up in pink coats to control an agricultural pest.

Yes, I accept that it's become a symbolic cause to some people on both sides of the argument, but the rest of the world must think there's something a bit barmy about politicians even thinking it matters enough for government ever to have waded into this one in the first place.

What is much more important at the moment is that the UK government addresses devolution properly. It needs to give the impression it is thinking the issue through and proposing a rational and understandable settlement that is likely to work, stick and be fair, rather than be driven by expediency, the minimum they think they can get away with and temporary electoral advantage.

Across the board, the calibre of political debate on this and most other things, has dropped markedly since the election. And that's from a very low starting point.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I thought that the convention on not voting on non Scottish matters was something Sturgeon had clearly stated that the SNP would now be ignoring more - such as on health issues if it helped to protect the NHS in Scotland.

Until the last few days, Nicola Sturgeon and other senior SNP members had been more or less clear that they were going to continue to voluntarily abstain on issues which did not affect Scotland. The issue about the rushed bill on voting on non-Scottish issues, which the SNP managed to get sent back for more consideration, was that it would have prevented Scottish MPs from voting on issues that indirectly affect Scotland. Health would be one of those issues - although the devolved Scottish Parliament has powers to decide how to spend the health budget, the total budget they have is set by a formula that is based on UK-wide health spending, and hence a Westminster bill that cuts NHS budgets in England and Wales will automatically cut NHS budget in Scotland. A similar thing happens with welfare. Unless the Scotland bill would allow full fiscal autonomy, that is.

The fox-hunting question is not in that category. It is something that has absolutely zero impact in Scotland.

quote:
It seems the most likely conclusion is that she has figured they can gain some general popularity by voting this down, and then say "hey look, we voted on English laws and you all liked that", thus gaining legitimacy in doing so again in the future, even if the subsequent issue is one people feel they shouldn't vote on.
I suspect that is right. It's a gamble, because it could add ammunition to the "English votes" side. But, it could also undermine the popularity of a bill restricting Scottish MPs voting rights if it's seen as something that allows the Commons to more accurately reflect the views of English people. It also demonstrates the commitment of SNP MPs to parliamentary process and involvement in UK politics - which is important because of the perception that they are only there to break the Union and force another independence referendum (whereas they are there to represent their constituents and attempt to steer the UK in a direction their constituents would want - same as any other MP)

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391

 - Posted      Profile for Humble Servant     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
However, I'm not sure this is the best issue to take that stand on.
I agree. As issues go, internationally and objectively there could hardly be a more trivial one to choose to fight. The UK Parliament must already look stupid enough in the rest of the world for the amount of time and fatuous fervour it has wasted over the last twenty years on whether people can or can't dress up in pink coats to control an agricultural pest.

You underestimate the English love of fluffy bunnies. And yes, I know the foxes kill the fluffy bunnies (which is a good thing, because the bunnies are eating our food, crippling our livestock with trip hazards and undermining our railway embankments) but the English love of all things fluffy can't get past the fluffiness of the fox. Fox hunting is a major issue in this silly trivial little island.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Now, now. It's a combination of two ancient English passions - love of fluffy things and hatred of posh people.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that unless there is a vote to federate the union, *all* the MPs should vote on *all* the laws.

If the English want a devolved parliament then they should pester their MPs for one.

If in fact they think the Westminster parliament *is* the English parliament that rules over Britain and graciously devolves a few issues back to the celtic fringe, then they need disabusing of this notion.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is simply a guess, but my suspicion is that the SNP are testing the waters - to see what reaction they get over a relatively trivial issue ...

Whether it's a smart political move -- I'm not convinced. It may result in a 'Why are they interfering with things south of the border?' backlash.

They may be testing the waters to see what kind of reaction they get so when there is something of greater weight they can get some kind of sense of the amount of support or opposition they'll receive.

That might sound daft but it's the only reason I can think of ...

It may not even be as sophisticated as even that, though ... it could simply be, 'We hate posh English people and we want to show them as much ...'

But we all knew that anyway.

[Ultra confused] [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's not yet 1.45pm and I've already heard someone being interviewed use of the SNP the words 'hypocrisy' in the way I did above. Just to add to the mix, they also got in a reference to Parnell.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Locally a Tory MP, member of Blue Fox, an organisation of Conservatives not in favour of the hunt, has pointed out that it does affect the Scots as there are hunts in the Lowlands which hunt on both sides of the border.

BTW, it isn't just love of fluffy things. It's a deep feeling that it is wrong to have fun killing things.

It's a sense that when the string of riders close down major roads while they get to the other side, holding up even commercial traffic for their pleasure (on working days, so who are these people) they are arrogating something to themselves that shouldn't be theirs.

And when the farmer who works hard to close down footpaths by covering stiles with barbed wire, but makes sure there is a stretch of hedge that has been prepared to be safe for the horses, it is saying something about status.

When a colleague claims that the only reason some people hunt is because their layer of society deems it absolutely necessary to attend the hunt ball, and that is not possible without actually chasing the fox, that is saying something about the need for fox control.

If the foxes, who are mostly controlling insects and worms - if you see their droppings, they are a demonstration of the Almighty's love of beetles - do require control, then they don't require being bred in barns for the hunt to chase, and there are perfectly good means, such as are used for rabbit, with lamps and shotguns. Nobody moans about the cruelty of rabbit shooting.

My grandfather farmed, and did not lose hens to the foxes - he claimed it was a matter of good husbandry. (I heard a woman on the radio who kept free-range hens near Cambridge, and likewise has no problems.) He did turn the stag hunt off his land, after my mother, very young and small, playing in the garden, found herself surrounded by the hounds. ("We've always come over here before," says the MoH.) (Somebody has recently said to me that in those circumstances, stag hounds wouldn't be a problem.)

Chasing things to the death for fun. Not good stewardship of creation, I would think.

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
TonyK

Host Emeritus
# 35

 - Posted      Profile for TonyK   Email TonyK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Frankly I think Mr Cameron should have let the Fox Hunting vote proceed as planned. He would probably have lost anyway (it was going to be a free vote and it seems that there are some 20-30 Conservative MPs who would vote against it) but then he could point to the fact that the SNP MPs are voting on purely English matters.

Ms Sturgeon 'claims' that she's doing English voters a favour by opposing this amendment, but it wouldn't take a lot of SNP 'interference' in purely English votes to generate considerable anger among English voters.

--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK

Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391

 - Posted      Profile for Humble Servant     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:


Chasing things to the death for fun. Not good stewardship of creation, I would think.

Yeah, I know these are strongly felt opinions. I just think there is so much more evil in the world that I could be commenting on and doing nothing about. It really seems odd that this one generates so much passion. It's rather like the homeless peoples' dogs, who get more sympathy and tips than the homeless people themselves. The animal refuges get more publicity than the women's refuges. I think we live in a sick kind society where concerns about cruelty are transferred to animals because we don't want to admit how cruel we are to one another.

That said, I have changed my mind about the SNP decision to fight this one. I think they played this one exactly right. They will be seen as heroes by the fluffy bunny brigade south of the border, and have given DC a bloody nose and proved that the prospect of a Labour government being manipulated by the SNP is not the worst case scenario after all. Ms Sturgeon was spot on: "he only has a slender and fragile majority". Excellent politics.

Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This is simply a guess, but my suspicion is that the SNP are testing the waters - to see what reaction they get over a relatively trivial issue ...

Whether it's a smart political move -- I'm not convinced. It may result in a 'Why are they interfering with things south of the border?' backlash.

I think if they pick their targets judiciously, then it could actually play in their favour, as the silliness of the issue concerned will tend to rub off on the harumphing about the 'West Lothian Question'.

Playing with issues doesn't work very well optically in the press, additionally so when a bunch of braying idiots is likely to muddy the waters.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

1. that there has been considerable demand from people in England for the SNP to vote against the change, that this reflects a disconnect between Cameron and the views of the people of England which the SNP can help to redress.

I'm hoping this is a wake up for the fools who voted the bastards in. It is but one of the many things that will be put forth in disregard of the people.
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Yeah, I know these are strongly felt opinions. I just think there is so much more evil in the world that I could be commenting on and doing nothing about. It really seems odd that this one generates so much passion. It's rather like the homeless peoples' dogs, who get more sympathy and tips than the homeless people themselves. The animal refuges get more publicity than the women's refuges. I think we live in a sick kind society where concerns about cruelty are transferred to animals because we don't want to admit how cruel we are to one another.

Well, spending on humans far exceeds spending on other animals. And it needn't be one thing or the other. Other coordinating conjunctions exist. (Hint: three letter word beginning with A and ending with D. And there is an N in there somewhere.)

But you do have a general point. Dealing with the factors which facilitate a slide into homelessness is a bitch.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have no thoughts one way or the other on fox hunting - it's not an issue here. What this does show is shabbiness and hypocrisy on the part of the SNP - and saying that there are some fox hunts which cross the border - how many I wonder and how many hunts a season? - is not a real answer to it.

As for saying that the SNP is right in helping redress a disconnect between Cameron and the people of England!!!! The ballot box only a few months ago showed clearly that a substantial plurality of English voters wanted a Tory government. I would not have voted Tory, you may not have voted Tory, but the election results gave the answer.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I have no thoughts one way or the other on fox hunting - it's not an issue here. What this does show is shabbiness and hypocrisy on the part of the SNP - and saying that there are some fox hunts which cross the border - how many I wonder and how many hunts a season? - is not a real answer to it.

As for saying that the SNP is right in helping redress a disconnect between Cameron and the people of England!!!! The ballot box only a few months ago showed clearly that a substantial plurality of English voters wanted a Tory government. I would not have voted Tory, you may not have voted Tory, but the election results gave the answer.

No, it didn't. The Tories were better at talking to fear and that is what wins elections. If knowledge were water, you'd die of dehydration collecting what the electorate understand.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

As for saying that the SNP is right in helping redress a disconnect between Cameron and the people of England!!!! The ballot box only a few months ago showed clearly that a substantial plurality of English voters wanted a Tory government. I would not have voted Tory, you may not have voted Tory, but the election results gave the answer.

Even if we accept the premise that people in England clearly wanted a tory government (which is eminently debatable) it does not follow that they wanted everything that party promised. Opinions on fox hunting, while divided, clearly favour retaining the ban. Parliament aligning with the people on this is a good thing, whichever combination of MPs provide the majority.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What this does show is shabbiness and hypocrisy on the part of the SNP - and saying that there are some fox hunts which cross the border - how many I wonder and how many hunts a season? - is not a real answer to it.

The "hunts which cross the border" is an argument that was reportedly made by an unnamed Tory opposed to relaxing the fox-hunting restrictions. It is of-course a stupid thing to say. First, because the number of hunts is so small. Second, because the proposal would be to allow more dogs to flush out a fox to be shot immediately, so isn't really anything to do with chasing a fox on horse back. How many foxes build their den right on the line of the border, such that it isn't clear whether you can use two or more dogs to flush it out?

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I have no thoughts one way or the other on fox hunting - it's not an issue here. What this does show is shabbiness and hypocrisy on the part of the SNP - and saying that there are some fox hunts which cross the border - how many I wonder and how many hunts a season? - is not a real answer to it.

As for saying that the SNP is right in helping redress a disconnect between Cameron and the people of England!!!! The ballot box only a few months ago showed clearly that a substantial plurality of English voters wanted a Tory government. I would not have voted Tory, you may not have voted Tory, but the election results gave the answer.

OK, but when the English were offered versions of devolutional (regional assemblies) it garnered no popular support - and there is no popular movement of any size for English devolved government or federation of the union - why, therefore, should we expect MPs in the national parliament to behave as if we had a federal government ?

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles
I think if they pick their targets judiciously, then it could actually play in their favour, as the silliness of the issue concerned will tend to rub off on the harumphing about the 'West Lothian Question'.

Playing with issues doesn't work very well optically in the press, additionally so when a bunch of braying idiots is likely to muddy the waters.

Indeed. If they pulled this sort of stunt on an NHS bill, they could be accused of playing political games with people's lives.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756

 - Posted      Profile for Nicodemia   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What Doublethink says [Overused]

The SNP MP's, plus any NI MP's were elected to serve in Westminster as the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

We can't now say they can only vote on certain issues and not on others. That would make them 2nd class MP's.

If we really want Federal Government, with Scottish, Irish, Welsh and English Parliaments all governing their own little fiefdoms, then lets do something about it.

But I don't think we do. So all MP's can vote on all issues. Even if they are trivial/vitally important/only affecting Cornwall.

Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
lilBuddha - you say No, it didn't but that's ambiguous and I have no idea what proposition in my post that the "it" refers back to. And while I don't know exactly how elections are where you are, fear is probably not what determines how people vote. They may fear a government by the party for whom they do not vote, but by and large, voting is a positive step.

Arethosemyfeet I did not say the English people - I said a clear plurality of English voters - a rather different population. 2 other points. Was fox hunting an election issue? Probably not a major one, if one at all. Then people vote for a party's candidate not necessarily supporting each and every plank in that party's platform. They are saying that they prefer that party to be in government.

Doublethink, I think the real issue on this thread is the hypocritical manner in which the SNP has gone back on what it said, less than 3 months ago, it would not do. The UK is still only partly federal in its constitution and will not be fully so until questions such as the devolution of a set of powers to each constituent is worked out and formalised. That's probably some distance down the track, and I don't think it is part of this debate.

Finally Alan Cresswell: As you say, the comment about cross-border hunts is just plain silly.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Was fox hunting an election issue? Probably not a major one, if one at all.

I was in Japan during most of the election campaigning. But, it wasn't anything I recall mention of on anything reported on BBC News, stuff posted by friends on Facebook etc. The fact that the government made it an open vote certainly suggests it wasn't a manifesto commitment.

quote:
I think the real issue on this thread is the hypocritical manner in which the SNP has gone back on what it said, less than 3 months ago, it would not do. The UK is still only partly federal in its constitution and will not be fully so until questions such as the devolution of a set of powers to each constituent is worked out and formalised. That's probably some distance down the track, and I don't think it is part of this debate.
I'm not entirely sure hypocrisy is the word I would use for a change of opinion. I have seen the word used in this context because the Scottish law currently allows unlimited numbers of dogs to be used to flush out a fox - which is what the bill currently postponed in Westminster would allow - ie: the SNP are blocking a change in English law that would allow practices already allowed in Scotland. Which would be hypocrisy, though does ignore the intention of the SNP to put a bill through Holyrood restricting the number of dogs that can be used to two (it's unfortunate that the timing was such that the Westminster bill came before the Holyrood one).

As you point out, the main issue is constitutional. Westminster MPs are elected to the UK Parliament, and anything which limits the involvement of some MPs in the processes of UK Government are major constitutional questions. The bill to restrict the involvement of Scottish MPs in "non-Scottish" business in Westminster is something that would be a big constitutional change - maybe one that should have been considered during the bills to create the devolved parliaments/assemblies, or as part of further devolution of powers. It seems that Cameron is trying to rush through that bill, and is likely to create further constitutional issues down the line. When it comes to discussing the NHS, should Manchester MPs also be barred from participating (the NHS budget within Greater Manchester has been devolved to the local authority)? What about issues where powers have been devolved to elected mayors? Or issues that are very local in scope? The UK has been undergoing a process of creeping federalisation over the last decade or so, without any overriding structure to support this. Questions of Scottish MPs involvement in all of the business of Westminster is the tip of the iceberg of constitutional issues this creates, and a bill just addressing Scottish MPs is a sticking plaster approach at best.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sir Roger Gale, MP for North Thanet.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Indeed. If they pulled this sort of stunt on an NHS bill, they could be accused of playing political games with people's lives.

Really? In what sense is it a 'stunt' ?

[On the specific case of the NHS it would largely depend on the content of the bill as to whether or not that accusation would carry weight - and given ideological positions, this is a red herring and a rather ridiculous one at that as the most likely scenario would be one in which they were voting against cuts].

[ 15. July 2015, 10:08: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:


We can't now say they can only vote on certain issues and not on others. That would make them 2nd class MP's.


So. What?

I'm afraid for a long time now I've been hugely unsympathetic to the bleating and whining from certain parts of Westminster about how we can't create 2 classes of MP. The current partially devolved system has *already* created 2 classes of VOTER.

Who's in charge here? It certainly shouldn't be the MPs, and I don't care if some of them are second class. I do care that I'm disenfranchised from having any body looking after England except one elected by the whole UK.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I have no thoughts one way or the other on fox hunting - it's not an issue here. What this does show is shabbiness and hypocrisy on the part of the SNP - and saying that there are some fox hunts which cross the border - how many I wonder and how many hunts a season? - is not a real answer to it.

As for saying that the SNP is right in helping redress a disconnect between Cameron and the people of England!!!! The ballot box only a few months ago showed clearly that a substantial plurality of English voters wanted a Tory government. I would not have voted Tory, you may not have voted Tory, but the election results gave the answer.

OK, but when the English were offered versions of devolutional (regional assemblies) it garnered no popular support - and there is no popular movement of any size for English devolved government or federation of the union - why, therefore, should we expect MPs in the national parliament to behave as if we had a federal government ?
I'm not convinced that's true anymore. It certainly was once, but I think that the last election is helping the ball of English home rule start rolling again and with increasing speed.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan Cresswell, the hypocrisy I see is saying that the SNP would not vote on any strictly English matter at Westminster, and now deciding to do so without offering any principled explanation why. I'm not talking about fox hunting rules in England or Scotland. I am talking about this basic change to the position of the SNP to voting on any matter of purely English concern.

Betjemaniac is getting close to it when he says that this makes him a second class voter. I do not know enough about the devolution of power to Edinburgh, but is it possible for the Westminster Parliament to repeal the legislation which effected the step? You then get into the interesting question of how a sovereign Parliament can restrict its repeal of its own legislation. This question was considered in Clayton v Heffron (1960) 105 CLR 205, which may be worth examining by those who have a direct interest in this present question.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I heard an SNP member say 'the gloves are off', meaning that they are furious with Cameron. I suppose this started straight after the referendum vote, when Cameron did his 'England for the English' speech, which seemed to appall some people.

And also as the Scotland Bill wends its way through the Commons, it's being said that the Tories are vetoing all amendments. Well, this is probably quite normal for the government of the day, but let us say that relations are not honeymoonish right now betwixt Cameron and SNP.

But it's always difficult to tell how much fury and indignation is synthetic on all sides, and what kind of covert machinations are going on.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If knowledge were water, you'd die of dehydration collecting what the electorate understand.

It's amazing how little respect some people have for democracy and the electorate when they combine to return the "wrong" result. It's the sort of attitude that leads to Glorious Revolutions and Socialist People's Republics where the people concerned are simply told what to do by their benevolent masters because they're too stupid to be trusted to choose for themselves.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
An awareness of the effects of propaganda and realism about how people make decisions is not a lack of respect. Democracy is not a magic bullet that produces ideal government, it's an averaging tool that means that while we avoid the worst possible policies for governing, we also miss out on some of the best. Also, one can disagree with the choices someone makes and think they're acting against their own best interests in making them without thinking that they should be deprived of the right to make them.

[ 15. July 2015, 12:13: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The change to the fox-hunting legislation was requested by the NFU on behalf of (mainly Welsh) hill farmers, for whom the effects of the ban on hunting or the ability to use more than 2 dogs to flush out foxes so they can be destroyed has been catastrophic.

Hill farming is a marginal enough endeavour without being prevented from protecting your flocks. Scottish hill farmers are able to use as many dogs as necessary to flush out predators before despatching them using a gun; their counterparts in England and Wales are prevented from so doing, and that just isn't fair or reasonable.

No one is talking about people in pink coats drinking from silver flasks and shouting 'tally-ho', what they were hoping for was for red-faced working farmers being able to use dogs to flush foxes out of woodland and large expanses of moorland.

The way the SNP has behaved over this is despicable. That hard-pressed hill-farmers are being further marginalised thanks to the machinations of an English-born, half German Edinburgh Scot is disgraceful and won't be forgotten in a hurry.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Indeed. If they pulled this sort of stunt on an NHS bill, they could be accused of playing political games with people's lives.

Really? In what sense is it a 'stunt' ?

[On the specific case of the NHS it would largely depend on the content of the bill as to whether or not that accusation would carry weight - and given ideological positions, this is a red herring and a rather ridiculous one at that as the most likely scenario would be one in which they were voting against cuts].

A stunt in the sense that I am accusing them of not really caring about English foxes, but rather wanting to highlight the current imbalances of the British lack-of-constitution.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
.. English-born, half German

[Roll Eyes]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
North East Quine

Curious beastie
# 13049

 - Posted      Profile for North East Quine   Email North East Quine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:


No one is talking about people in pink coats drinking from silver flasks and shouting 'tally-ho', what they were hoping for was for red-faced working farmers being able to use dogs to flush foxes out of woodland and large expanses of moorland.

The Telegraph, the Independent,the BBC and most other media are illustrating this story with pictures of pink coated huntsmen. If this bill is really about welsh hill farmers it is being reported otherwise.

Fwiw I think the SNP should abstain on this vote.

Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

A stunt in the sense that I am accusing them of not really caring about English foxes, but rather wanting to highlight the current imbalances of the British lack-of-constitution.

As mentioned up-thread, they are also hoping to introduce similar legislation in Scotland, so you can't contest them on consistency.

I'm also not sure that it's relevant whether or not they 'care' about the legislation they sponsor so long as they continue to represent the views of those that they have been voted in to represent.

A clear majority of the public would be against hunting - and it's arguable that a certain proportion of the Tory party would not be best representing the views of their constituents in supporting the bill - a local MP told local media that he had no views on hunting prior to the last election, having taken donations from the hunting lobby, only to change his mind after the election took place.

To choose this issue to invoke an argument of principle over representation would seem an odd choice, especially when it could be turned around to ask exactly what principle the PM himelf is abiding by, by the introduction of this bill at this particular time.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
NEQ:
quote:
The Telegraph, the Independent,the BBC and most other media are illustrating this story with pictures of pink coated huntsmen. If this bill is really about welsh hill farmers it is being reported otherwise.
Inaccuracy in journalism: there's a surprise.

In other news, the Pope remains Catholic.

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The change to the fox-hunting legislation was requested by the NFU on behalf of (mainly Welsh) hill farmers, for whom the effects of the ban on hunting or the ability to use more than 2 dogs to flush out foxes so they can be destroyed has been catastrophic.

Well, of course we can debate whether more dogs are more effective at flushing out foxes, and whether they do so without inflicting more suffering before the bullet finishes the job. I suspect that more dogs doesn't make much difference, for a start I expect that a fox surrounded by several dogs will be harder to shoot (without hitting a dog) than with only one or two dogs.

But, all the evidence suggests that Scottish hill farmers who can use more dogs are not significantly less hard pressed than their English and Welsh peers. In other words, the number of foxes or the efficiency with which they are killed is not a significant factor in how hard pressed hill farmers are.

quote:
The way the SNP has behaved over this is despicable.
Any more despicable than the Tories introducing spiteful, poorly thought through bills to maintain a slim majority by gagging a large part of the Opposition?

quote:
the machinations of an English-born, half German Edinburgh Scot is disgraceful and won't be forgotten in a hurry.
I'm not sure it's relevant that Angus Robertson was born in England - he was raised in Scotland and has represented Moray for almost 15 years. And, the nationality of his mother is even less important.

I think the intention was that this act would be remembered. It is entirely symbolic, and you make symbolic gestures to be noticed and remembered. Cameron needs to take note that the 56 SNP MPs are not going to sit meekly by while the people of the UK are screwed over by the Etonian elite. They are there in Parliament representing their constituents and the people of the UK, and they're determined to do that to the best of their ability. Even if thet gets the ire of the Speaker because they politely applaud a good point rather than act like a bunch of yahoos.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
.. English-born, half German

[Roll Eyes]
Yes I'm bewildered by that one too. As far as I know, Nicola Sturgeon was born in Ayrshire and Alex Salmond in Linlithgow. Neither, as far as I know have any recent German ancestors.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Angus Robertson is leader of the Westminster SNP MPs. His father is Scottish, his mother German and he was born in Wimbledon - but all his schooling was in Scotland so it's unlikely he even remembers his first couple of years of life in England.

All of which is totally irrelevant an unrelated to his competance to lead the SNP MPs or represent his (rural) constituency.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

A stunt in the sense that I am accusing them of not really caring about English foxes, but rather wanting to highlight the current imbalances of the British lack-of-constitution.

As mentioned up-thread, they are also hoping to introduce similar legislation in Scotland, so you can't contest them on consistency.

I'm also not sure that it's relevant whether or not they 'care' about the legislation they sponsor so long as they continue to represent the views of those that they have been voted in to represent.

A clear majority of the public would be against hunting

But SNP MP's weren't voted in to represent a clear majority of the British public. They were elected to represent the voters in their respective constituencies in Scotland.

Maybe I am over-interpreting what is going on. I am interpreting / wildly speculating as follows:

The British lack-of-constitution is mostly held together by gentleman's agreements and workarounds. The SNP, for various (perfectly honourable) reasons, would prefer it to be held together by actual structures. On the principle that the good is the enemy of the best, one way to ensure that the powers-that-be replace gentleman's agreements with structures is by refusing to abide by those gentleman's agreements. However, if they are going to manipulate lack-of-constitutional processes, it is socially more responsible to do so on issues that don't matter all that much. Hence, foxes rather than healthcare.

[ 15. July 2015, 13:24: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If knowledge were water, you'd die of dehydration collecting what the electorate understand.

It's amazing how little respect some people have for democracy and the electorate when they combine to return the "wrong" result.
No need to put "wrong" in scare quotes. The Tory government are a wrong choice for the majority. Fox hunting is an easy demonstration of this.
However, I think the same thing of the electorate when they get it right.
Forget fox hunting for a moment and pick any serious issue. Whatever you have chosen, it will likely won't be simple. The complexities and long-term view needed to observe cause and effect will put most people out of understanding the issue.
But, hell , you're right. Since this includes most politicians as well, it is unfair to pick on the voters.

[ 15. July 2015, 14:52: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Tory government are a wrong choice for the majority.

From your point of view.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think some SNP members feel that war has been declared by Cameron, as the Scotland Bill goes through Parliament, and apparently, all amendments are being rejected by the govt, including those which are derived from the Smith Commission. Hence, 'the gloves are off' comment.

But this stuff is very technical, and probably incomprehensible to outsiders. Is it really the casus belli? Dunno.

You can look at it in so many different ways - Cameron is setting a trap for SNP, or the SNP is setting a trap for Cameron, or maybe it's just SNAFU.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Tory government are a wrong choice for the majority.

From your point of view.
36% of the population voted Tory - not a majority by a long chalk.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497

 - Posted      Profile for lowlands_boy   Email lowlands_boy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Someone will be along in a minute to mention votes won vs seats awarded, with UKIP suffering an injustice...

--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....

Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Tory government are a wrong choice for the majority.

From your point of view.
36% of the population voted Tory - not a majority by a long chalk.
24% of the electorate, wasn't it? 36% of those voting.

I keep hearing the cry, '76% not Tory', not that it makes much difference.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
OK, but when the English were offered versions of devolutional (regional assemblies) it garnered no popular support

...because the "regions" were entirely artificial creations, the regional assemblies were glorified talking shops rather than any kind of sensible government, and looked like a significant extra expense for no obvious gain, and the whole thing smelled like a plot by the Euro-federalists?

quote:
and there is no popular movement of any size for English devolved government
Because it hasn't really been necessary. Devolution is a recent phenomenon, and since the creation of the devolved parliaments, whether the Scottish MPs vote or not hasn't made a difference before - the government of the day has always had the numbers to carry the vote.

It is intellectually inconsistent to allow Scottish MPs to vote at Westminster on matters that have been devolved to Holyrood. This has always been true, but when it hasn't made a difference to any outcomes, there's a pragmatic argument for doing nothing.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools