the SNP have saved the foxes!

[MikeG]

.......u know foxes. In the media today police in Kent are looking for a gang of youths who set there (their......)dogs on a fox. The fox got away. It then was "just" terrified like a fox on a legal fox hunt before it is shot just before the hounds get it. The only difference is that the dog owners dress,the above group in tracksuits and hoodies and the"legal"group in fancy dress. Oh and the social class of the perpetrators. Guess which is legal.

Neither. Hunting a fox with a pack of hounds is illegal. Did you not know this?

 

[Craig B]

I personally find it bizarre that any two-brain-celled person could think that a country that has stood implacably opposed to the Euro for twenty years and more would suddenly be only too happy to enter into a currency agreement with Scotland.

We are in a Union. That's the starting point. What are the assets and arrangements that have to be ended or amended in the event of separation, and how is this to be done? It's like a divorce. You can't just say, Who with two brain cells would enter a separation agreement with that woman?

It's not like: oh, there's a country over there. What's it called? England. OK let's go over and impose a currency union on it. So the following is utter drivel.

No, it really wouldn't. The English voters would never stand for an independent Scotland having a say in English economic policy, or in English economic policy being set to favour Scotland. You only have to look to the reaction towards UK money being used to support Greece to see that.

But Greece isn't leaving a monetary union with England. You've just explained that! Haven't you?

The fact that Scottish people don't seem to grasp this is odd. The fact that they seem to think that it's an insult to or attack on Scotland by those beastly English is just plan stupid.

I have explained why that is not so. I will not undertake to comment on your statements about the supposed stupidity of the Scottish people.

 

[Seismosaurus]

We are in a Union. That's the starting point. What are the assets and arrangements that have to be ended or amended in the event of separation, and how is this to be done? It's like a divorce. You can't just say, Who with two brain cells would enter a separation agreement with that woman?

That's nonsensical. Yes, we are in a union. Now. You understand that a Yes in the referendum would have dissolved that union, right?

It's not like: oh, there's a country over there. What's it called? England. OK let's go over and impose a currency union on it.

Yes, after a Yes vote that's literally what it would be.

It's like imagining you can have a divorce in which the wife insists that you're going to share the car. "You don't want to share it with me? Well tough. It's a joint asset and I've decided it will remain a joint asset. Your opinion is irrelevant."

Sorry, but no. You get to insist that you should have it. You get to insist that he should have it instead. Maybe you'll win, maybe you'll lose.

But you don't get to insist that it be shared, over the objection of the other person. It's just a flat-out idiotic position.

So the following is utter drivel. But Greece isn't leaving a monetary union with England.

I'm not claiming that Greece is in a monetary union with England. I'm saying that English voters do not like the idea of our economy being used for the benefit of others. They don't like it in the case of propping up Greece, and they wouldn't have allowed it in the case of an (allegedly) independent Scotland.

I have explained why that is not so.

And I have explained why you are incorrect.

I will not undertake to comment on your statements about the supposed stupidity of the Scottish people.

Wise.

 

[Craig B]

That's nonsensical. Yes, we are in a union. Now. You understand that a Yes in the referendum would have dissolved that union, right?

Yes, after a Yes vote that's literally what it would be.

It's like imagining you can have a divorce in which the wife insists that you're going to share the car. "You don't want to share it with me? Well tough. It's a joint asset and I've decided it will remain a joint asset. Your opinion is irrelevant."

Sorry, but no. You get to insist that you should have it. You get to insist that he should have it instead. Maybe you'll win, maybe you'll lose.

But you don't get to insist that it be shared, over the objection of the other person. It's just a flat-out idiotic position.


I'm not claiming that Greece is in a monetary union with England. I'm saying that English voters do not like the idea of our economy being used for the benefit of others. They don't like it in the case of propping up Greece, and they wouldn't have allowed it in the case of an (allegedly) independent Scotland.

And I have explained why you are incorrect.

Wise.

All that is very feeble stuff.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Well if you can't counter stuff that feeble then I guess we know why the SNP's position on the currency union looked so ridiculous to voters.

 

[Francesca R]

But you don't get to insist that [a currency union] be shared, over the objection of the other person. It's just a flat-out idiotic position.

No more than you get to insist that a political union be shared over the objection of the other party. As in--you know--a referendum votes for independence from one side only, and the other tries to void that.

Unless you don't actually respect self-determination. Which the SNP didn't. Except when it applies to Scotland.

 

[Craig B]

No more than you get to insist that a political union be shared over the objection of the other party. As in--you know--a referendum votes for independence from one side only, and the other tries to void that.

Unless you don't actually respect self-determination. Which the SNP didn't. Except when it applies to Scotland.

I'm puzzled by this. Kindly explain.

 

[Francesca R]

Reprise from post 42

 

[Craig B]

Reprise from post 42

Reprise from post 10.

 

[Francesca R]

I take from post 10 that you are OK with the SNP flouting the self-determination principle (in the case of voting on a law not affecting Scotland) in order to indirectly increase the likelihood of it getting some result it wants. IIRC you were similarly OK with the SNP trying to threaten the UK government into a currency union that it did not want. These two moves are still against that principle. You just pardon it if it's your team doing it, and are seemingly oblivious to the glaring inconsistency and the red flag that waves.

 

[catsmate]

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.

How about dogs?

I can't believe that this thread has gone 63 posts without a "what does the fox say?" reference.

Well encountering a talking fox would probably engender even more hysteria.

 

[MCel58]

The issue is not what the SNP will or will not flout but that they will completely undermine and exploit any democratic principle in order to get their way on the only thing that matters to them Scottish power in any political sphere. Therefore, they and their supporters will use any opportunity to do this even when it does not affect the electorate in Scotland and in fact may be to the detriment of the electorate in England. Now many Scottish people will say that is only fair as that is what has happened in Scotland for years. However, that is what the set up of a Scottish parliament with devolved powers was determined to correct and therefore this argument now holds no water. In a fair and democratic system MPs should only vote where there is no other democratic parliament that already holds the power to decide that issue for that electorate, otherwise they cannot be held accountable at the polls for the decision it does make.

 

[Craig B]

I take from post 10 that you are OK with the SNP flouting the self-determination principle (in the case of voting on a law not affecting Scotland) in order to indirectly increase the likelihood of it getting some result it wants. IIRC you were similarly OK with the SNP trying to threaten the UK government into a currency union that it did not want. These two moves are still against that principle. You just pardon it if it's your team doing it, and are seemingly oblivious to the glaring inconsistency and the red flag that waves.

Have you not read #10 before now?

 

[Francesca R]

What you describe (and approve of) in post 10, I describe in 38 as: "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)"

 

[Francesca R]

The issue is not what the SNP will or will not flout but that they will completely undermine and exploit any democratic principle in order to get their way on the only thing that matters to them Scottish power in any political sphere.

I believe we agree. (Although I think I have used less absolute language actually)

 

[MCel58]

I believe we agree. (Although I think I have used less absolute language actually)

Yes I believe we do, the difference for me is I have already lived under the SNP as a ruling party and have seen this behaviour at play at various times in many guises. I am very surprised that many of my former comrades who prided themselves on being non aligned republicans seem to have lost their ability to analyse the SNP position from an objective viewpoint and now seem to have adopted "SNP think" rather than explain what they themselves believe.

 

[Francesca R]

Such principle-compromising behaviour is rather common, very common even. It's hardly something the SNP alone have a lock on.

Partisanship--supporting what a party does in pretty much all situations--is pretty common as well of course. So voters tend to get the political parties they want/deserve. And floating voters, well, they have to float.

 

[MCel58]

Such principle-compromising behaviour is rather common, very common even. It's hardly something the SNP alone have a lock on.

Partisanship--supporting what a party does in pretty much all situations--is pretty common as well of course. So voters tend to get the political parties they want/deserve. And floating voters, well, they have to float.

I agree absolutely but none of these former comrades would ever admit to such a thing as being partisan rather than principled. In addition, they are not party members believing that being non aligned to any party allows them to have objective views and not be bound by any party line. However, since the referendum campaign, that appears to have got lost. For example, prior to the referendum, most of us believed as as a matter of principle that Scottish MPs should not vote in any devolved matters and we gave Scottish Labour party MPs rather a hard time whenever we met them on this issue. Now the SNP are doing the same and suddenly it is OK.

 

[skeptichaggis]

Neither. Hunting a fox with a pack of hounds is illegal. Did you not know this?

Actually your wrong. A total of two hounds is supposed to be used but if circumstances demand it(by that it means terrain)then another hound with a additional handler may accompany the two hounds already in the hunt. Furthermore even if only two are set after the fox,the fox who can of course smell all the dogs including those leashed does not know that only two are being sent does it. Personally I don't think it makes a difference does it. Wethr the fox is terrorized into exhaustion by one dog or one hundred . Its still unnecessary cruelty isn't it.
Let's put it this way,if you had to,for any reason kill a fox,dog,cat would you terrorize it into exhaustion first despite having proper more efficient, less logistically costly and more humane methods of culling? Of course you wouldnt.

Sick your leashed dog on a cat that gets easily away in front of a police station and see what happens. At the very least you would be cautioned, the sspca would be called and they would take your dog. You have not actually hurt any cats just frightened them but that's what would happen.
Yet rich folk are allowed to terrorize foxes in the same manner provided the shoot the fox before its torn to death. Which various animal groups have presented footage of them deliberately not doing anyway.
Look you may not agree with the SNP stance or action here but you must agree anyone getting any pleasure out of inflicting unnecessery terror on animals is a sick,twisted piece of work.

 

[MikeG]

Actually your wrong. A total of two hounds is supposed to be used but if circumstances demand it(by that it means terrain)then another hound with a additional handler may accompany the two hounds already in the hunt. Furthermore even if only two are set after the fox,the fox who can of course smell all the dogs including those leashed does not know that only two are being sent does it. Personally I don't think it makes a difference does it. Wethr the fox is terrorized into exhaustion by one dog or one hundred . Its still unnecessary cruelty isn't it.
Let's put it this way,if you had to,for any reason kill a fox,dog,cat would you terrorize it into exhaustion first despite having proper more efficient, less logistically costly and more humane methods of culling? Of course you wouldnt.

Sick your leashed dog on a cat that gets easily away in front of a police station and see what happens. At the very least you would be cautioned, the sspca would be called and they would take your dog. You have not actually hurt any cats just frightened them but that's what would happen.
Yet rich folk are allowed to terrorize foxes in the same manner provided the shoot the fox before its torn to death. Which various animal groups have presented footage of them deliberately not doing anyway.
Look you may not agree with the SNP stance or action here but you must agree anyone getting any pleasure out of inflicting unnecessery terror on animals is a sick,twisted piece of work.

I've told you about this before. When you mean "you are", the shortening is "you're", not your.

-

I very carefully said "a pack of hounds". If you think 2 dogs is a pack, then this is your problem. Apart from that, I completely agree with you. I ordered an exercising pack of fox hounds off my land yesterday, and told the huntmaster that I would take him to court if they didn't respect my property. I loath the buggers, and everything they stand for.