the SNP have saved the foxes!

[Craig B]

It does make a mockery of the SNP position, in my view though. At least it is a further nail in the coffin of the hypothesis that they care at all about self determination, rather than power. (The other one was when Alex Salmond wanted to force a currency union on the rest of UK a year ago)

Kindly explain these strange statements. Salmond wanted to "force a currency union" in order to gain power over England? The SNP votes against the Tories not for self determination, but to gain power over England?

I find Sturgeon's explanation, cited in #26, to be much more plausible, and perfectly valid.

Since the election, David Cameron’s government has shown very little respect to the mandate that Scottish MPs have. On the Scotland bill, reasonable amendments backed by the overwhelming majority of Scottish MPs have been voted down. The English votes for English laws proposals brought forward go beyond any reasonable proposition and look to make Scottish MPs effectively second-class citizens in the House of Commons. So, I think if there’s an opportunity – as there appears to be here – and on an issue where David Cameron appears to be out of touch with majority English opinion as well, to actually remind the government how slender their majority is.

 

[Francesca R]

See here, here, here, here, here.

I would be more comfortable with "in order to gain power". (Not that they are the only political party that wants that.)

Now the SNP is deliberately declaring its will to vote on laws not impacting the constituents it represents. Its complaints about being ruled from England/London/Westminster ring rather hollow.

 

[MCel58]

Given the proposals about EVEL made by Cameron, the SNP should now state that they intend to vote on English laws, until such time as the current proposals are withdrawn. It is not for the Speaker, or for the majority of MPs to relegate some of their number to second class status, by determining what bills they can vote on. It is for agreement between the different countries' representatives. If the government thinks otherwise, it needs to create a Parliament for England.

Until then, Scots MPs should vote on anything they like to create maximum difficulties for the current administration.

I would like the SNP to state clearly that that's what they're doing. Nothing wrong with it. Quite right.

I am sure that this is the opposite to what you have argued in the past which is that Scottish MPs should not vote on any issue where their own constituents will not be affected as that issue has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. If MPs can vote on such devolved issues then there is no way for the electorate to hold them accountable for their vote which has had no effect on them.

 

[Craig B]

Now the SNP is deliberately declaring its will to vote on laws not impacting the constituents it represents. Its complaints about being ruled from England/London/Westminster ring rather hollow.

Here again are the terms in which Sturgeon has made that declaration.

Since the election, David Cameron’s government has shown very little respect to the mandate that Scottish MPs have. On the Scotland bill, reasonable amendments backed by the overwhelming majority of Scottish MPs have been voted down. The English votes for English laws proposals brought forward go beyond any reasonable proposition and look to make Scottish MPs effectively second-class citizens in the House of Commons.

In other words, Cameron is not attending to Scottish concerns on the Bill. Therefore the SNP will oppose the Government. I hope that NuLab does likewise, in spite of Harriet Harman's odd ideas on this topic.

Once an agreement is reached on the Scotland Bill, I would accept that the SNP, and other Scottish MPs, ought not to vote on devolved issues.

There is moreover a running dispute on what is meant by "English Laws". Of 20 past examples listed by the Government, the SNP challenges more than half of them as having implications for Scotland.

 

[MCel58]

Here again are the terms in which Sturgeon has made that declaration.

Since the election, David Cameron’s government has shown very little respect to the mandate that Scottish MPs have. On the Scotland bill, reasonable amendments backed by the overwhelming majority of Scottish MPs have been voted down. The English votes for English laws proposals brought forward go beyond any reasonable proposition and look to make Scottish MPs effectively second-class citizens in the House of Commons.

In other words, Cameron is not attending to Scottish concerns on the Bill. Therefore the SNP will oppose the Government. I hope that NuLab does likewise, in spite of Harriet Harman's odd ideas on this topic.

Once an agreement is reached on the Scotland Bill, I would accept that the SNP, and other Scottish MPs, ought not to vote on devolved issues.

There is moreover a running dispute on what is meant by "English Laws". Of 20 past examples listed by the Government, the SNP challenges more than half of them as having implications for Scotland.

There is clearly something strange happening in Scotland where it seems that the even the greatest champions of the rational political strategists who were actively non aligned to any political party now quote SNP challenges as if they are the definition of the truth. Can you give your opinion on whether the 20 examples have implications or not for Scotland and explain why your stated position prior to any new Scotland Bill has moved from Scottish MPs should not vote on devolved issues to one which is contingent on getting agreement on the Scotland Bill.

 

[Francesca R]

In other words, Cameron is not attending to Scottish concerns on the Bill. Therefore the SNP will oppose the Government.

And the SNP opposing the government on the Scotland bill makes sense. Opposing the government on a bill that would not affect SNP condtituencies however rather flouts the pretence of their self-determination principle, as they have flouted it before.

There is moreover a running dispute on what is meant by "English Laws". Of 20 past examples listed by the Government, the SNP challenges more than half of them as having implications for Scotland.

Is that "Zen and the art of SNP politics"? No doubt every issue voted on anywhere in the world could be tortured such that its scope somehow affected Scotland, thus giving the SNP a green light to stick its oar in against its so-called principles.

 

[Craig B]

And the SNP opposing the government on the Scotland bill makes sense. Opposing the government on a bill that would not affect SNP condtituencies however rather flouts the pretence of their self-determination principle, as they have flouted it before.

So while a dispute goes on over the rights in Westminster of representatives of the Scottish electorate, these representatives are not permitted to oppose the government on other matters, to force concessions on the Scotland Bill? You don't really mean that, do you?

Is that "Zen and the art of SNP politics"?

No.

No doubt every issue voted on anywhere in the world could be tortured such that its scope somehow affected Scotland, thus giving the SNP a green light to stick its oar in against its so-called principles.

Hardly. Why don't you look at the issue, instead of writing something as silly as that? You're just flailing about. Here is the relevant point as made by Sturgeon.

... in her letter to Mundell, Sturgeon said that was a "technical assessment" about the strict legal extent of legislation, and failed to take into account wider practical impacts, such as changes to the Barnett formula which could affect Scotland's budget. "This narrowness is a significant concern to me," she said. She asked for greater clarity as there was a "clear Scottish interest" involved, and called for a meeting between her deputy, John Swinney, and Mundell and Grayling.

"The proposals, as they currently stand, are unacceptable," Sturgeon wrote. "The core... involves an assessment of what is within Scotland's devolved competence. This is a technical assessment where the determining factor is whether any provision of a Bill legally extends to Scotland. There is no mention of factoring into that decision any wider considerations of Bills that do not legally extend to Scotland, but could have an impact because, for example, of Barnett consequentials arising from funding changes.

 

[Francesca R]

So while a dispute goes on over the rights in Westminster of representatives of the Scottish electorate, these representatives are not permitted to oppose the government on other matters, to force concessions on the Scotland Bill?

Of course they are permitted to, But IMO it is a further nail on the coffin of any supposed principle of self determination.

 

[Craig B]

Of course they are permitted to, But IMO it is a further nail on the coffin of any supposed principle of self determination.

A campaign by the representatives of the Scottish electorate in Westminster to oppose an unacceptable Scotland Bill is a nail in the coffin of the principle of self determination? How very odd.

 

[Craig B]

Of course they are permitted to, But IMO it is a further nail on the coffin of any supposed principle of self determination.

Let me comment further on your post. First, a precedent from the history books.

[Parnell] ... played a leading role in a policy of obstructionism (i.e., the use of technical procedures to disrupt the House of Commons' ability to function) to force the House to pay more attention to Irish issues, which had previously been ignored. Obstruction involved giving lengthy speeches which were largely irrelevant to the topic at hand. This behaviour was opposed by the less aggressive chairman (leader) of the Home Rule League, Isaac Butt.

That means that the Irish Nationalists had abandoned the principle of self determination, does it? They were voting on all manner of issues not related to Ireland. Nor does the SNP obstruct the business of the House, being in this matter of the same opinion as the then leader of the Irish Home Rule League.

Another thing. The SNP offered NuLab a con and supp agreement, in an attempt to prevent the formation of a Conservative government. That means that the SNP would have voted with NuLab on any issue, whether related to Scotland or not, that was deemed to be a matter of confidence. The purpose of this was to sustain a NuLab administration, which the SNP thought was more likely to grant further self determination to Scotland.

Voting on such issues along with NuLab would not, by any rational interpretation, be an abandonment of that principle. It would have been a strategy to promote it, as everybody understands. Whether the SNP's various schemes work or not is not the issue. That issue is, whether they are intended to secure more self determination. It is entirely obvious that they are intended to do just that.

 

[MikeG]

Let me comment further on your post. First, a precedent from the history books. That means that the Irish Nationalists had abandoned the principle of self determination, does it? They were voting on all manner of issues not related to Ireland. Nor does the SNP obstruct the business of the House, being in this matter of the same opinion as the then leader of the Irish Home Rule League.

Another thing. The SNP offered NuLab a con and supp agreement, in an attempt to prevent the formation of a Conservative government. That means that the SNP would have voted with NuLab on any issue, whether related to Scotland or not, that was deemed to be a matter of confidence. The purpose of this was to sustain a NuLab administration, which the SNP thought was more likely to grant further self determination to Scotland.

Voting on such issues along with NuLab would not, by any rational interpretation, be an abandonment of that principle. It would have been a strategy to promote it, as everybody understands. Whether the SNP's various schemes work or not is not the issue. That issue is, whether they are intended to secure more self determination. It is entirely obvious that they are intended to do just that.

Who is this? Do you mean New Labour? If so, that project is dead. 'twas declared thus by Brown, wasn't it?

 

[Craig B]

Who is this? Do you mean New Labour? If so, that project is dead. 'twas declared thus by Brown, wasn't it?

It was most certainly declared thus by Blair, but having read Harriet Harman's recent pronouncements on Tory welfare cuts, I think that New Labour has undergone resurrection, or at least zombification, and has returned from the tomb.

 

[devnull]

Well, yeah. That's not for fun or sport. It's pest control.

I have no problem calling an exterminator for rats, but I'd be repulsed at the idea of a "sport" where they're purposely set out to be pulled apart by cats.

Personally I dont care how they die, as long as it's humane.

Sport hunting isnt necessarily inhumane, altho I agree you get a lot of rednecks who dont even care about 1 shot kills.

 

[skeptichaggis]

To be fair I'd be just as opposed to re-introducing working class bloodsports like bear and badger baiting or dog fighting but they were banned generations ago and banned outright with no compromises to keep the culture alive, thankfully no-one is pressing for a return to legality for these activities.

Right,its peculiar that the only"bloodsport"left in any form,even a diluted one,is a "sport"almost exclusively for the very well off financially. Its clear that the old boys network has enabled this. If that was not the case fox hunts would have gone out with bear baiting.

Could you imagine if poor people campaigned for a limited form of cock fighting. Claiming a vet would be on hand and rules would enforced to prevent much suffering. Not only would they be dismissed out of hand the police would visit the campaign leaders to give them a stern warning not to hold illegal fights.
Its hard not to be struck by the blatant" one law for the rich,one law for the poor"attitude Westminster has in regards to animal cruelty. A creep got arrested here last week for setting his two dogs on a cat,the cat escaped up a tree but he still got charged. A passer by had got mobile footage and took it to the police. No animal was hurt but because he set his dogs loose,scaring the cat he gt his animals impounded and is facing jail time.
What's the difference between that and fox hunting? The social and financial class of the"hunter".

Fox hunting is for creeps who get a kick out of inflicting terror and pain-period. I mentioned in my first post that the aw in Scotland was less harsh than England's and that the SNP move was a bit cynical,so what though. Opposing fox hunts is the proper thing to do-no matter the reason.

P.S I just today researched the use of solid gold toilets in Britain. There are two,one belongs to David Cameron the other to-arthur scargill. The only difference is Scargill uses the foreclosure letters banks sent to miners to wipe his bum. You know he has a framed(solid platinum) picture of Maggie on the ceiling above his bed. Every night he tucks himself in,looks wistfully up at her and says"you and me old girl,we fooled em all".

 

[ddt]

P.S I just today researched the use of solid gold toilets in Britain. There are two,one belongs to David Cameron the other to-arthur scargill. The only difference is Scargill uses the foreclosure letters banks sent to miners to wipe his bum. You know he has a framed(solid platinum) picture of Maggie on the ceiling above his bed. Every night he tucks himself in,looks wistfully up at her and says"you and me old girl,we fooled em all".

Your research on gold toilets in flawed. Robert Maxwell used to own one too; he wiped with unpublished photos of the Israeli nuclear facilities at Dimona. His daughter Ghislaine has inherited the toilet and uses it to impress gullible girls whom she then employs to render, hmm, "services" to, a.o., prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein.

(makes you think how the Mossad came to the idea of using a honey trap on Vanunu ).

On the issue of fox hunting, I agree with you that this is class justice, and that traditional fox hunting is a form of animal cruelty. If indeed somewhere foxes form a pest, yes, hunting is inevitable; but then employ professional hunters who take pride in a clean, one-shot kill, instead of an hours-long torture of the animal(s).

 

[skeptichaggis]

Your research on gold toilets in flawed. Robert Maxwell used to own one too; he wiped with unpublished photos of the Israeli nuclear facilities at Dimona. His daughter Ghislaine has inherited the toilet and uses it to impress gullible girls whom she then employs to render, hmm, "services" to, a.o., prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein.

(makes you think how the Mossad came to the idea of using a honey trap on Vanunu ).

On the issue of fox hunting, I agree with you that this is class justice, and that traditional fox hunting is a form of animal cruelty. If indeed somewhere foxes form a pest, yes, hunting is inevitable; but then employ professional hunters who take pride in a clean, one-shot kill, instead of an hours-long torture of the animal(s).

When I'm out knowledged I'm out knowledged. I bow to your superior scholarship.

The bit you wrote at the bottom is right as well. I have zero problem with animal culls,I grew up in the country. Sometimes its necessery to carry out cullings. These should in 2015 be carried out by professional gamekeepers/ wildlife wardens etc using approved methods. Not a pack baying to see blood and suffering. The baying pack of course are not the hounds but the riders.

 

[Francesca R]

That issue is, whether they are intended to secure more self determination. It is entirely obvious that they are intended to do just that.

What is entirely obvious is that the SNP sticking its oar in on non Scottish issues makes its complaints about the reverse ring hollow. And its attempt to impose a currency union on the rest of the UK in the event of a yes independence vote last year gave the lie to its supposed principle of self determination.

Independence/self rule where we want it, not where you want it. That is not about principles of anything.

(It is however cool that they saved the foxes)

 

[MikeG]

.......(It is however cool that they saved the foxes)

Except they haven't. As I explained. However, it would be good if they had.

 

[Damien Evans]

It's different here in Australia obviously - only good fox is a dead fox.

It's hard when theyre so cute though, but it has to be done.

We don't set hounds on them though, we shoot or poison bait them

Sent from my C1904 using Tapatalk

 

[Craig B]

What is entirely obvious is that the SNP sticking its oar in on non Scottish issues makes its complaints about the reverse ring hollow. And its attempt to impose a currency union on the rest of the UK in the event of a yes independence vote last year gave the lie to its supposed principle of self determination.

Independence/self rule where we want it, not where you want it. That is not about principles of anything.

(It is however cool that they saved the foxes)

Nonsense. The SNP wanted to continue to use the pound, which is not inconsistent with political self determination. Either that, or there was no desire for self determination in Ireland, where sterling was the currency until 1979. The wicked Irish "imposed a currency union" on the UK up to that time. Did you notice the imposition? ETA After that they imposed a currency union on Europe.