Maq Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) "Throw Sturgeon in front of the horses" http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/7785362 Maybe I'm a bit happier with this decision, just to annoy Paul Nuttall a bit! But whose EU membership is he worried that Scotland might influence?! The UKs or England's?! "But if we allow this to go unchecked, if we allow the Scottish MPs to be the decision makers on this issue, what happens when they take a stance you disagree with? What happens if they disagree with you on Trident, on immigration, on our membership of the EU?" Edited July 14, 2015 by Maq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I think that morally this is the correct decision, but politically I think the SNP have picked the wrong fight. To be morally correct they should have banned fox hunting here first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Cameron and the torries can't have it both ways I think you'll find they can and probably will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I guess that's 1-0 to the SNP. Tories have called off the vote for tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mariokempes56 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 If the English MPs are happy to piss all over the amendments to the Scotland bill (without bothering to even attend the debates) then fukk them. What the hell do they expect ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristolhibby Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I guess that's 1-0 to the SNP. Tories have called off the vote for tomorrow. EVEL to be pushed through, fox hunting to be amended later in the year when Scottish MPs are neutered. UK Parliament looking lee and more pointless to Scottish electorate (exasperated by Labours collapse and not being an opposition in any credible way). The path to independence is becoming much clearer. J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Nothing, they should do nothing,I believe in the sovereignty of nations. Creating a situation where "implicit consent" is given to feck about with each others sovereignty comes across as extremely Jejune. Especially considering it's a change of habit. However what do I know, probably another amazing Piece of Real Politik by the SNP. We probably won't agree on this one then. I think the rights of individuals (and foxes) are more important than the sovereignty of nations. I'm not too bothered about the politics of this one. It will pretty much be forgotten about by the time of the next election. Sometimes they should just take the risk and vote for something just because it is the right thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 To be morally correct they should have banned fox hunting here first. I don't think they will ever ban fox hunting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 To be morally correct they should have banned fox hunting here first. Correct we're not even enforcing the law up here properly, i.e. no flushing going on. Like all politicians a compromise on integrity is the way forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) We probably won't agree on this one then. I think the rights of individuals (and foxes) are more important than the sovereignty of nations. I'm not too bothered about the politics of this one. It will pretty much be forgotten about by the time of the next election. Sometimes they should just take the risk and vote for something just because it is the right thing to do. Foxes don't have "rights" FFS, interesting the rationals that get invented to preserve a world view. "i think the rights of foxes trumps the sovereignty of nations" Yeah we're not going to agree, jesus christ. No moaning now when the Tories feck about with our soveriengty , the foxes come first. Edited July 14, 2015 by phart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) Also with this, the SNP MP's are devoting their time to providing better protections for English foxes than Scottish foxes. Does the collective rights of Scottish humans and foxes not matter to the SNP? Scottish foxes are ostensibly being herded and shot, but in reality are really being torn apart by dogs. Why are the SNP politicians spending so much time politicking for the rights of the English fox when the Scottish fox is being slaughtered? Edited July 14, 2015 by phart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Also with this, the SNP MP's are devoting their time to providing better protections for English foxes than Scottish foxes. Does the collective rights of Scottish humans and foxes not matter to the SNP? Scottish foxes are ostensibly being herded and shot, but in reality are really being torn apart by dogs. Why are the SNP politicians spending so much time politicking for the rights of the English fox when the Scottish fox is being slaughtered? Sometimes you can't pick which ground you fight, sometimes its your opponents who choose the ground. A repeal of the Fox Hunting ban was in the Conservative manifesto. I suspect this was in there as sop to the pro-hunt lobby but also something that could be bargained away in coalition negotiations. Immediately after the election, there was some speculation around whether or not they would introduce a bill to repeal in this session and whether or not the SNP would vote against it. The SNP were non-committal on whether the would vote or not and there was no mention in the Queen's Speech. Since the original EVEL plans fell to pieces last week, the Tories rushed this bill forward in an attempt to flush out the SNP. The proposed vote was not a complete repeal of the ban - although the impact would be to effectively repeal it - but to bring that in line with the law in Scotland. The thinking was obviously that the SNP couldn't vote against the legislation on the basis that its English Only and also that they would be voting against the current position in Scotland. If the SNP were to vote, then - in to Tory eyes - that would strengthen the case for EVEL, however that fails a bit as a lot of people in England will think that the SNP have done exactly the right thing as Fox Hunting is more of a moral issue. Had they picked something less emotive that may have worked. I doubt this is the end result the government expected here. I suspect they've pulled the vote because while SNP support would have ensured that the vote would fail, it would probably be by a majority greater than 56 and so would nullify any EVEL argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfieMoon Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Fox hunting soon to be on the Tory agenda. I hadn't realised that it still happens in Scotland apparently but the intention is to flush the fox out (to presumably be shot) rather than let the dogs tear the poor thing apart. Also, it needs to be done by more than 2 dogs in Scotland from what I've read. Why is that? Naw, other way round mate. Two dogs maximum. From what I read today, it is 2 dogs maximum in England/Wales and 2 dogs minimum in Scotland which opens it up to using a pack of hounds. Both of those scenarios stipulate that the dogs are only to flush out the fox but I imagine it's easier to control 2 dogs than a pack of dogs so it would seem that Eng/Wales were ahead of us with their legislation on this but they were then looking to deconstruct this to allow full-blown fox hunting again. As others have said - even if we were to take the moral high ground in this vote (putting the politics of EVEL to the side), then we should have been doing it from a position of having a tighter ban than we do currently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Chris Graying getting a kicking in the house now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stapes Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 If the English MPs are happy to piss all over the amendments to the Scotland bill (without bothering to even attend the debates) then fukk them. What the hell do they expect ? This. They impose the views of a Parliament on us for decades and not a whimper is heard. The tables are turned and you'd think someone had shat on the speaker's chair. Get it right up them. Vote on every single English-only issue. At the end of this five year term they should be wanting to end the union just to get rid of the SNP. Morally we're in the right on this issue, and legally we have every right to vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Morally we're in the right on this issue, No we're not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecie Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 fukk them. Good summary. Would read again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stapes Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 No we're not. In the sense that killing animals for fun is wrong, yes we are. IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 In the sense that killing animals for fun is wrong, yes we are. IMO. In the sense that the law in Scotland is currently the same as we'd have been voting against for England we are wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killiefaetheferry Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I'm sure I heard today that the SNP voting would be in conjunction with reviewing the Scottish legislation on this - it was emphasisedby the BBC (no less) that it was not the SNP who had introduced the current law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfieMoon Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I'm sure I heard today that the SNP voting would be in conjunction with reviewing the Scottish legislation on this - it was emphasisedby the BBC (no less) that it was not the SNP who had introduced the current law. Even if they didn't introduce it - they've had 8 years in government to review and tighten it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Even if they didn't introduce it - they've had 8 years in government to review and tighten it. Indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecie Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Even if they didn't introduce it - they've had 8 years in government to review and tighten it. It's hardly a priority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 It's hardly a priority. Not a priority for Scotland but a priority for England? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecie Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Not a priority for Scotland but a priority for England? Id say it's a priority for neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.5eeaf0fbe501ba3c868c32fd77caef1f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.